Providence — The Municipal Court of Providence dismissed or reduced five low‑level traffic and parking cases during a televised docket the judge framed as a "Top 5" list, citing medical emergencies, military service and acts of charity.

In the hearing, the judge dismissed two charges against a 100% disabled Iraq veteran after the defendant (identified in court as a service member with hearing loss and PTSD) said he had been en route to a Veterans Affairs appointment and had not received some mailed citations. After viewing red‑light camera footage, the judge said the defendant’s service‑related medical conditions and the circumstances justified dismissal and "the least that we can do is show our gratitude," then dismissed the charges.

The judge also dismissed a red‑light charge for a 71‑year‑old driver who said she was returning from her husband’s surgery at Roger Williams hospital, after reviewing the camera footage and factoring the medical context. A separate case involving a driver represented by a friend was dismissed after the court viewed video and concluded the driver had gone to a hospital emergency room.

In another matter, the court released the boot on a vehicle registered to Miss Fields after noting a long history of overnight parking citations that she said stemmed from exhaustion while supporting four children. The judge credited a charitable contribution and set a modest installment plan for remaining fines, and he dismissed older tickets that officials said would be impractical to collect from another party.

In the final case, a single mother who said she had paid a meter was fined $25 for parking at a marked bus stop and was given a break on a school‑zone speeding citation. The judge announced he would apply a $100 donation from a viewer to cover the defendant’s $55 in fines and use the remaining $45 to help other litigants.

The judge repeatedly framed these outcomes as exercises of judicial discretion tied to the defendants’ circumstances — medical appointments, caregiving duties, military service, and financial hardship — while cautioning that leniency is not a license for repeat violations. Several defendants were offered payment arrangements, and the court publicly acknowledged outside charitable contributions used to pay fines.