The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed civil penalties for driving offenses and rejected the contention that the defendant was entitled to be represented by a non-attorne y

At the commencement of the hearing, Rupert filed a  “motion to enforce [his] right to plead and manage his own cause by himself  and by any person of a decent and good moral character,” explaining that he  was “trying to get help from [his] father.” The court recessed the hearing to  review the motion and take up other cases also scheduled for hearing.

When the hearing in Rupert’s case resumed, the court sought to  clarify the issue, stating, “So your memorandum indicates you believe that you  have both the right to represent yourself and to have somebody else represent  you who is not a lawyer.” Rupert confirmed that the court’s understanding  was correct. The court then granted the motion to the extent that Rupert requested to represent himself, but denied his request to be represented by a  person—namely, his father—who is not authorized to practice law.

Further, because this is a civil  matter involving a traffic infraction, Sixth Amendment protections do not  apply. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; 29-A M.R.S § 103(1) (2016). Therefore,  contrary to Rupert’s contention, no fundamental right was affected by the  court’s denial of his request to be represented by his father, and consequently the application of the statutory provision allowing the law enforcement  officer, who was not a licensed attorney, to represent the State did not rise to  the level of an equal protection violation.