Judge's Seizure of Officer's Cellphone Leads to Lawsuit, Letter

Ragan, assigned to the Rockville district station, contacted his captain, who notified King about the incident. King said he met with Kim later that day to try to get the phone back. He says Kim's only concession was to return the phone Friday. So King said he left the courthouse empty-handed and dissatisfied.

"I want my guys to be accountable," King said. "But [Ragan] was actually trying to enhance the effectiveness of the court" proceedings.

Montgomery Administrative Judge Eugene Wolfe, the top judge on the bench, returned the cellphone to Ragan on Tuesday.

Wolfe said that cellphone use is prohibited in courtrooms and that judges have ample latitude to set a standard of conduct in their courtrooms.

"I learned that we had his cellphone, and the purpose for which it was confiscated had been accomplished," Wolfe said. "We're not in the business of maintaining people's cellphones."

Ragan declined to comment on the matter in an e-mail, saying only that "the issue has since been resolved."

Manger's letter to Wolfe is the first formal inquiry the chief has made about a judge's conduct. Wolfe said he is looking into the facts of the case before responding to Manger.

The union that represents Montgomery police officers successfully sued Kim last year in a case involving an officer whom the judge admonished for arriving late to a traffic docket and for not taking notes on traffic citations.

"There's this little thing called the Constitution," Kim told the officer during the Feb. 14, 2005, hearing, to which the officer said she arrived late because she had been summoned as a witness for a criminal case before another judge. "The Constitution says, among other things, that every defendant has a right to confront his charger.''

"Okay," Officer Traci Hutzell responded, according to a transcript of the hearing.

"And if that person wants a trial, that person has every right to confront the person charging him or her with a crime. Traffic citation, as minor as it might seem to you, is the charging of a crime. . . . You deny the person the right to trial, you're denying that person a constitutional right. You understand what that is?"

The judge later told the officer he had the authority to "impose court costs on you, individually," for arriving late and dismissed two cases after Hutzell told him she hadn't taken notes on the traffic stops.

"Sir, the officer has no evidence," the judge told one of the people who had been issued citations. "Your case is dismissed. I don't know why you were asked to come to court, there being no evidence."

He told Hutzell she needed a written explanation, from her and her commander, about why she had issued two traffic citations without taking notes on the stops.

Montgomery officers are not required to keep notes on traffic stops. Circuit Court Judge D. Warren Donohue entered an order in favor of the police union in which he quashed Kim's order that the officer provide a written explanation.