Return to Index6/28/98
It all started on the morning of April 4, 1997, at 8:10 AM as the Knight and his daughter, Crystal Joy, were crossing Eads Street in Newport, Oregon. They were proceeding east, at the intersection of NE 10th St and Eads, on their way to the girl's school, Sam Case Elementary. As the couple cautiously made their way onto the edge of the street, from their left, several cars heading south passed in the closest lane. Finally, the near lane was clear and they proceeded further into the street.
Just then, Officer Tony Hernandez, in his City of Newport Police Dept. patrol car, approached from the right. He was headed north on Eads and in the far lane. The Knight felt confident that the cop would yield the right away, since he and Crystal Joy were already starting to cross. They were disappointed, as the policeman failed to stop, and the Knight said, directly to through the open window of the cop's car, "We had the right of way!"
Officer Hernandez didn't glance the Knight's way, but he did drive around the block and park near an intersection where the Knight would cross. (You must understand, Newport is a real small town and Officer Hernandez had seen Crystal Joy and the Knight walking to Sam Case many mornings over the past four years. He knew where to park.)
As the Knight came even with the front of the police car, he turned to his right, as he knew he would, and spoke to the policeman: "Officer," the Knight said, "I believe my daughter and I had the right of way when you passed us by."
"Nay!," replied Hernandez, " you were not in a crosswalk."
"But, we were at an intersection," the Knight said, and, sensing the cop's ignorance, "there are crosswalks at that intersection, even if they aren't marked in paint on the pavement."
"That is wrong," Officer Hernandez insisted. "The legal crosswalks are all painted across the street."
****************************************
The Knight and his daughter went on their way to her school. Later that morning the Knight got online and found the law on crosswalks in the official Oregon Revised Statutes, which he copied and included in a letter to Officer Hernandez and his boss, Newport City Police Chief Jim Rivers. By writing this letter, the Knight was being less than kind to Officer Hernandez. Nevertheless, his words were carefully chosen and did not exaggerate the importance of Hernandez's error.
*****************************************
April 4, 1998
Dear Officer Hernandez:
I want to make it clear at once that I did not consider your vehicle to be close enough to constitute a serious threat of striking us. However, as my daughter and I were over halfway across the near lane and it is my belief that we had the right of way. As you passed, I shouted, not too loudly, to you that you should have stopped.
I assume you heard me since you parked a short distance away in the direction we were headed toward Sam Case School. I approached your patrol car and stated my opinion that my daughter and I were in a crosswalk and therefore had legal right of way. You denied there was an unmarked crosswalk at this or any other intersection. You stated that crosswalks were marked with painted lines. no lines, no crosswalk.
I challenged your opinion and asked when was the last time you had cited a driver for failure to yield right of way to a pedestrian. You ignored my question and assured me you had been doing your job a long time. At this time I stated that I had reviewed the Oregon State Laws in the courthouse and was certain there are unmarked crosswalks. You again denied my statement. At my request you identified yourself by providing me with your business card.
For your information, Officer Hernandez, I refer you to the state law defining crosswalks: Chapter 801, section .220 in the Oregon Revised Statutes, 1995 Edition. (For the brief legal text, see links.)
In regards to the duties of a driver approaching pedestrians who are entered onto the roadway in a crosswalk, I refer you to Chapter 811, section .010 of the 1995 Edition of the Oregon Revised Statutes (For the brief legal text, see links.)
As I said, I do not contend that you were in technical violation, since your vehicle passed about eight feet from us as we hesitated. However, several of the southbound drivers who failed to stop as we stood on the edge of the road passed within four feet. You did not cite these drivers, who were approaching you as they failed to yield.
I would like an answer to my question about citations for failure to yield right of way to pedestrians. I would like an answer for your instances in 1996 and for the Newport Police Dept. as a whole for that year.
Since Newport advertises itself as a tourist & visitor-friendly community, I think it would be in keeping to review our record for protecting pedestrians.
Signed Don Q Knight
cc: Chief Rivers
********************************
On April 10, 1998, less than a week after mailing the letter to Officer H., the Knight was driving on Hwy 101 in his home hamlet of Newport. He had just turned off onto a side street when he saw red-and-blue flashing horror in his rearview mirror. The Knight pulled over as required and was, once again, caught off-guard as he was greeted by the not-too-friendly face of Officer Hernandez, who said, "Mr. Reynolds, I see you are not wearing your seatbelt."
Sure enough there was no safety harness attached. The knight was unhorsed. Still, he was not totally subdued and asked Officer H. if he had received the letter. "Yes," said Hernandez, "and you sent one to the Chief too." Handing the Knight his traffic summons, the officer reminded the Knight, "seatbelts are for your own protection."
On arriving home, the Knight's amusement over the encounter with Hernandez was quenched when he noticed the scheduled amount of the fine was to be $67.00. Not to be so easily undone, the Knight wrote a short letter to the Newport Municipal Judge, His Honor, Al McMullen.
********************************
April 14, 1997
Hon. Judge Al McMullen
Municipal Court
810 SW Alder
Newport, Oregon 97365
Dear Judge McMullen:
On April 10th, 1997, I received a citation from Officer Tony Hernandez for failing to wear a seatbelt and I am scheduled to appear before your court at 1:30 PM on April 28,1997. I intend to make this appearance on that date to plead guilty and to ask for leniency and a reduction in the amount of the fine.
My reason for writing is to send to the court the enclosed copy of a letter dated April 4, 1997, which I wrote to Officer Hernandez concerning a disagreement we had over the legal definition of a crosswalk. At the time he was giving me the ticket, Officer Hernandez acknowledged having received the letter and he also noted that I had sent a copy to Chief Rivers.
I am sure that Officer Hernandezšs spotting my seatbelt infraction as he drove north on Hwy 101, and his decision to make a u-turn and pursue me a block or so to where I turned east onto 12th Street, had nothing to do with the letter and was purely a matter of coincidence. However, just in case there are additional coincidences, I would like the letter to be noted by the court.
Yours, (Signed Don Q. Knight)
*****************************
What the Knight had not taken into account, however, was the fact that Judge McMullen was getting rather along in years and sometimes imagined he was back in the good old days, presiding over the Lincoln County Circuit Court, sentencing felons of all descriptions to long prison terms, as they no doubt deserved.
As is his custom, the Knight would simply not let go once an injustice had been done. He then took pen in hand and addressed himself to "Silent" Sam Sasaki, Newport City Manager, to whom the aforementioned complaint was to be directed:
(an excerpt)
April 28, 1998
Dear Mr. Sasaki:
(Snip*****)
I decided to appear in court on the ticket in the belief that the $67 scheduled bail was a bit much for a person of my means to pay for a first offense, especially one which endangered no one except myself. I appeared today in municipal court and, for about an hour, I observed the proceedings with interest. Judge McMullen did not grant any of the pleas for leniency and, in fact, did not appear to understand the statements of several of the defendants and was frequently prompted by the clerk of the court regarding the meaning of their statements.
When it came my turn I kept it simple. I pled guilty and asked that the fine be reduced in view of the fact it was my first offense in the City of Newport and my first ever seat belt infraction.
Just as he had done in all the preceeding cases, His Honor then looked down at a schedule on the desk in front of him and, sliding a cover sheet down, revealed items one at a time until he came to the one he was looking for. I assume it was, "failure to buckle up." He then read across the page, saying, "Fine $67, assessment $20, assessment $15, fees $5, costs $2."
I could hardly believe my ears. Then I recalled hearing these assessments being levied against all the rest of the defendants. The clerk spoke up to say that the total came to $109, and the judge asked if I could pay at once.
I said I could, and then I asked him, "What if I had just mailed in the $67 that it called for on the ticket?" He said that would have probably been the end of it. I said, "Then my asking for leniency has cost me $42?" He replied, "Well, therešs also the matter of your driveršs license. Let me look here to see if it should be suspended." At that point I decided to let well enough alone and I went downstairs to pay the fine.
While I was making out my check, I remarked to one of the clerks that my plea for leniency had cost me $40. She said I was not the first to get that treatment and offered to get me the complaint form. While I waited, I asked two other defendants behind me, who had pled guilty, and they showed me their citations and said the "assessments"had been added to the amounts of their scheduled fines. I finished my business and got a laugh from the group in the office by observing that I was lucky it wasn't a hanging offense, since then, my plea for leniency would have probably gotten me burned as well.
I insist there must be some legal basis for these "assessments" and "fees" and "costs." It is my distinct impression that these are being levied arbitrarily and inappropriately at the complete discretion of Judge McMullen.
************************
Over the period of the next year, the Knight came to learn a couple of things about the heavy hitters in the city government. He learned that, once upon a time, Judge McMullen had presided over the Lincoln County branch of the Oregon State Circuit Court. He had been in retirement for a number of years when he was persuaded to take the job as magistrate of the municipal court. Apparently part of the deal was that His Honor got to do it his way without anyone looking over his shoulder.
The year also allowed the Knight to learn where "Silent Sam" Sasaki got his nickname: Sam never responded to the above correspondence, even though the Knight resent the letter twice. Sam did cash the Knight's check for $109, though.
The good citizens of Newport are now forewarned about appearing before Judge McMullen with any hopes of having fines reduced.