Judge Grant grants multiple discovery motions, approves deferred findings and several dismissals at Lake Forest Park infraction calendar

Judge Grant presiding over the Lake Forest Park municipal infraction calendar on Oct. 20 granted a string of defense motions to suppress and dismiss after finding that prosecutors had not produced requested discovery in multiple cases, approved several deferred findings with conditions and set at least one continuance.

The court granted motions to suppress and dismiss in a number of camera-ticket and other infraction cases where defense counsel said discovery requests had not been answered. “I can confirm that the court did receive a copy stamped received August 22, came in via fax. So I will, grant defense motion, to suppress and dismiss,” Judge Grant said in one ruling. Defense attorneys thanked the court after several rulings: “I appreciate it, judge. Thank you,” one attorney said.

The court also granted deferred findings — commonly six-month continuances with conditions — in several traffic matters. In the Solodubanik matter (case 580635160), Judge Grant granted a petition for a deferred finding, ordering a six-month continuance, no moving-vehicle violations during the deferral period and payment of $175; the judge also required defensive driving school in that case. Similar deferred findings were entered in other cases with the same basic conditions: six months, no moving traffic violations and a $175 fee, with defensive driving required in at least one instance.

A number of specific outcomes recorded on the calendar included: - Bartram (580698225): defense motion to suppress and dismiss under IRLJ 3.1(b) granted after the defense reported no prosecutor response to a discovery request filed Aug. 22. - Multiple Pinkerton camera-ticket matters (case numbers cited on the record) — motions to suppress and dismiss granted where discovery responses were not received. - Romanyuk (580657221): continuance requested with a waiver of speedy hearing; matter was continued to Dec. 8 at 2:30 p.m.; the court reviewed earlier entries and determined the defendant likely remains eligible for a deferred finding. - Insalami / Kean Islami (580606965): counsel requested a continuance; the court set the matter for Dec. 8 at 2:30 p.m. with a waiver. - Chobani (250287771) and Astha Gupta (250259283): motions to suppress and dismiss granted after counsel said discovery requests had not been answered. - Kilar (4250262410): the court noted a declaration of nonresponsibility and dismissed the matter after counsel provided the document. - A no-insurance-related matter (discussed as the Kadeem/Kadim matter, 580673997): defense counsel and the prosecutor discussed transmission of an insurance card; the court later noted proof of insurance and imposed a $25 administrative charge when dismissing a related charge. - Liang (250285973): dismissed (court noted it was dismissed). - Numerous other camera-ticket cases where timely discovery requests were sent on dates in August and the city did not file responses — those motions to suppress and dismiss were granted on the record.

Several administrative and procedural matters were handled on the record: attorneys covered for absent colleagues, counsel coordinated by email and chat about discovery packets, and the court clerk and parties exchanged emails and faxes with discovery attachments during the hearing. Judge Grant noted at least one case that appeared to have administrative anomalies in the file and dismissed that ticket after reviewing the docket entries.

The court’s routine conditions for deferred findings, as announced on the record, were generally a six-month continuance, no moving-vehicle violations during that period and payment of $175; in at least one case the judge required completion of a defensive driving course. Continuances set during the calendar included a Dec. 8, 2:30 p.m. return date for multiple matters.

No statutory or policy determinations beyond application of the discovery rule cited on the record (IRLJ 3.1(b)) were made today; the actions recorded were primarily case-specific procedural rulings and schedule changes. Several defense attorneys and the prosecutor exchanged follow-up items by email or court filing during the session.

Court proceedings concluded after the final matters were called and the judge entered the rulings noted on the record; the calendar will reconvene on the scheduled future dates for matters continued to Dec. 8.