Will you pay the fine or give me your phone number? Traffic warden caught flirting suspended

Is he going to settle this or give me his phone number? The traffic warden under investigation for undue inducement to give or receive benefits now faces a conviction, as the offence also covers the benefit derived from a romantic or friendly relationship . As for the ‘Pizzardone’ – who has been suspended from public office for a year due to serious evidence against him – the charge of failure to perform official duties has been dismissed, as mandatory fines apply only to offences that endanger public safety. The Court of Cassation has dismissed the appeal against the 12-month suspension and has thus confirmed the serious evidence of guilt and the suspension imposed on a municipal police officer.

The judges had taken issue with the bizarre behaviour of the traffic warden – not far from retirement age – who would offer “settlements” to young women who were double-parking or parking in no-stopping zones. His approach was brusque when ‘flagging’ the offence, but he would then imply that a fine was not inevitable: all it took was giving him her phone number and social media details, combined with a promise to go out with him. A couple of female drivers had accepted this proposal, receiving, in one case, numerous messages, including ‘sleazy’ content, whilst in the other case, the requests for meetings had resulted only in the number being blocked.

The appellant also faces a charge of forgery because, following the mutually agreeable settlement, a zero had been added to the house number of the offending motorist in the report.

The Supreme Court rejects the defence’s argument that, in order to prove undue inducement, there was a lack of a legally significant benefit ‘which would have been obtained by the suspect and which must be identified as the attainment of a stable and immutable benefit that is not realised merely by receiving the telephone numbers or Instagram addresses of the victims, particularly given that, at any time, they could have blocked the account at any time’. A scenario which, as we have seen, did in fact occur, but this is not sufficient to refute the charge.

The judges point out that case-law has moved beyond the notion of ‘utility’ as reconstructed by legal scholarship, which excluded from the scope of the provision  purely sentimental benefits, such as the mere gratification of personal vanity and purely aesthetic pleasures. This shift in interpretation works to the detriment of the traffic warden. Because emotional gratification constitutes a benefit. According to the prosecution’s account, the inspector had abused his position by placing the lady in a state of subjugation. And he had made her an “indecent” proposal: no parking ticket for exchange of a mobile phone number, which had been used on several occasions. ‘Compared to the advantage offered by the public official of not issuing the fine, the undue disclosure of the telephone number with a view to initiating a friendly relationship constitutes an immediate and contingent benefit which, for the purposes of the legal classification of the act, the benefit of not having a report issued for parking offences”.