THE FIRST CASE ON THE DOCKET THIS MORNING IS THE INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, REGARDING REGINALD A RICHARDSON. JUDGE RICHARDSON, WOULD YOU STEP TO THE PODIUM. JUDGE RICHARDSON, THE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN SUMMONED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT ARE VERY UNFORTUNATE, NOT ONLY FOR YOU, PERSONALLY, BUT, ALSO, FOR THE JUDICIARY AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AS A WHOLE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATION COMMISSION'S UNCONTESTED RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU RECEIVE A PUBLIC REPRIMAND, AND CONSISTENT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISION IN IN RE FRANK, WE HAVE INVITED YOU TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT IN PERSON, TO RECEIVE THIS PUBLIC REPRIMAND. THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION CHARGED YOU WITH VIOLATING VARIOUS CANONS OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, FOR YOUR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN FAVORED TREATMENT FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, FOLLOWING YOUR ARREST ON A CHARGE OF SOLICITATION. ALTHOUGH YOU WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUITTED BY A JURY, ON THE SOLICITATION CHARGE, YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED BEFORE THIS COURT TO BE REPRIMANDED FOR YOUR CONDUCT AT THE POLICE COMMAND POST FOLLOWING YOUR ARREST. THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH YOU DO NOT CONTEST. UPON ARRIVING AT THE POLICE COMMAND POST, YOU IDENTIFIED YOURSELF AS A COUNTY COURT JUDGE, AND WHEN AN OFFICER MENTIONED THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE WAS GOING TO BE CALLED, YOU REQUESTED PERMISSION TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE CHIEF, STATING THAT YOU COULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. IN FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH THE OFFICERS, YOU STATED THAT YOU WERE PRO POLICE, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE DADE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HAD RUN YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR JUDGE. HAVING MADE THESE STATEMENTS, IT WAS YOUR INTENTION THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS BE MADE AWARE OF YOUR INNOCENCE, AND YOUR STATUS, AS A COUNTY JUDGE, AND NOT ARREST YOU. BASED ON THESE FINDINGS, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTED CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY. WE AGREE. THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT CONTAINS THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES BY WHICH OUR JUDICIARY IS GOVERNED, AND IT MUST BE ADHERED TO BY YOU AND BY ALL OF US, WHO SERVE AS JUDGES IN THIS STATE. CANON 2-B OF THE CODE WHICH YOU VIOLATED, STATES THAT A JUDGE SHALL NOT LEND THE PRESTIGE OF OFFICIAL JUDICIAL OFFICE TO ADVANCE THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF THE JUDGE OR OTHERS. THE COMMENT TO THAT SECTION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR A JUDGE TO ALLUDE TO HIS OR HER JUDGESHIP TO GAIN DEFERENTIAL TREATMENT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. THIS IS CLEARLY WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE DONE IN THIS INSTANCE. CANON ONE OF THE CODE, WHICH YOU, ALSO, VIOLATED, REQUIRES A JUDGE TO UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. USING THE PRESTIGE OF YOUR OFFICE TO ADVANCE YOUR OWN INTEREST AND OBTAIN SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOT ONLY UNDERMINES THE VERY PRESTIGE AND RESPECT OF YOUR OFFICE BUT ERODES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. THESE CONCEPTS OF INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE ARE THE CORNERSTONES UPON WHICH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM STANDS. BY DAILY CONDUCT, JUDGES MUST DEMONSTRATE TO THOSE THE JUDICIARY SERVES, THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS ENTITLED TO THEIR RESPECT. JUDGE RICHARDSON, YOU STIPULATED TO THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION AND WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY HEARING PANEL OF THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION NOTED, IN ITS FINDINGS, THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THE IMPROPRIETY OF YOUR CONDUCT AND GAVE ASSURANCES THAT SUCH CONDUCT WOULD BE REMEDIED AND NEVER REPEATED. WE EXPECT THAT TO BE THE CASE, AND THAT THIS PUBLIC REPRIMAND, ADMINISTERED BEFORE THIS COURT, WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE, TO YOU AND OTHER JUDGES, THAT SUCH CONDUCT WILL NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY BY THIS COURT. JUDGE RICHARDSON, YOUR PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS NOW CONCLUDED.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MA'AM.