Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to IRLJ 3.1 - Contested Hearings - Preliminary Proceedings (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for IRLJ 3.1 - Contested Hearings - Preliminary Proceedings

Purpose: The suggested changes to IRLJ 3.1 concern a defendant’s right to discovery in an infraction case. Currently, only the citing officer’s sworn statement and the names of any witnesses not identified in the citing officer’s sworn statement must be turned over by the prosecuting authority pursuant to a request for discovery. IRLJ 3.1(b). However, in several jurisdictions, law enforcement agencies have begun using video recording and photos as evidence of infractions. For example, red light camera tickets involve photos and video.

Given this use of technology by law enforcement, which is becoming more common every year, it seems appropriate to require that the prosecuting authority include in discovery any evidence which has been gathered in this manner, rather than requiring defendants to separately subpoena photos or video/DVDs from the prosecuting authority.

Under the suggested rule change, the prosecuting authority must either provide a copy of video or photographic evidence that the prosecuting authority proposes to use at trial, or else provide the website address where the evidence has been posted by the jurisdiction. For example, jurisdictions with red light cameras typically post the photographs showing the alleged misconduct for persons to review when they get a ticket in the mail. The defendant is able to access the website using the instructions sent by the jurisdiction.

The DMCJA also suggests amending IRLJ 3.1 (b) to clarify when evidence may be suppressed at trial if discovery has not been produced by the prosecuting authority in a timely manner.