Opinion 75
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rule is 2-3.7 Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal or Civic Organizations and Activities.)
Issue:
May an associate circuit judge who hears driving while intoxicated cases serve as a member of a county task force on drunk driving? Objectives of the task force include: studying the problem of drunk driving, arriving at solutions to this problem, and advocating more stringent legislative penalties for drunk driving.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5B states:
It is the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a judge’s involvement in activities involving a county task force on drunk driving whose objectives include advocating more stringent legislative penalties for drunk driving is activity in violation of Canon 5B. Such activity would reflect adversely upon the judge’s impartiality in hearing driving while intoxicated cases. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Commission the judge should not engage in the above-mentioned activity.
(Dated: March 4, 1982)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 75
Issue:
May an associate circuit judge who hears driving while intoxicated cases serve as a member of a county task force on drunk driving? Objectives of the task force include: studying the problem of drunk driving, arriving at solutions to this problem, and advocating more stringent legislative penalties for drunk driving.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5B states:
A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon his impartiality or interfere with the performance of his judicial duties.
It is the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a judge’s involvement in activities involving a county task force on drunk driving whose objectives include advocating more stringent legislative penalties for drunk driving is activity in violation of Canon 5B. Such activity would reflect adversely upon the judge’s impartiality in hearing driving while intoxicated cases. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Commission the judge should not engage in the above-mentioned activity.
(Dated: March 4, 1982)