FINK v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] When Terry Fink encountered a westbound traffic backup at a school crossing zone, he tried to go around the traffic by driving west in the eastbound lane. A school crossing guard stopped Fink from entering the crossing zone going against the flow of traffic, and another crossing guard helped him merge back into the westbound lane. But moments later, Fink drove diagonally across the crossing zone and back into the eastbound lane before continuing west, again going against the flow of traffic. For this, Fink was found to have committed failure to obey a school crossing guard, a Class C traffic infraction. Fink appeals this finding, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support it. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Fink lives near Bloomington's Summit Elementary School, which is located on a road with one eastbound lane and one westbound lane. A small section of road in front of the school is designated as a school crossing zone and therefore features a white-striped crosswalk leading across the road. Immediately east and west of the crosswalk, 40-foot concrete medians—“calming devices”—divide the road's two lanes. Tr. p. 31. The image below depicts the crosswalk and the median to its east, as viewed from the northwest.

Exh. 2 at 00:06.¹

[3] The road in front of the school is heavily utilized by parents when picking up their children from school. And it is common for westbound traffic to back up through the school crossing zone around the time of school dismissal. The school therefore employs several crossing guards to help manage traffic through the crossing zone and to assist children in crossing the road at the crosswalk.

[4] On September 26, 2024, Fink was driving west on the road at the time of school dismissal. He encountered a traffic backup at the school crossing zone, but rather than wait for the traffic to move along, Fink pulled his vehicle into the eastbound lane and attempted to pass through the crossing zone going against the flow of traffic. A crossing guard, identified only as Bobby, instructed Fink to stop, and Fink complied. But when Bobby further instructed Fink to back up and turn around, Fink refused and demanded to proceed west.

[5] Another crossing guard, Sarah Russell, then instructed Fink to merge back into the westbound lane. Fink complied and slowly drove west with the flow of traffic, past the east median. But when he entered the school crossing zone, Fink pulled his vehicle back into the eastbound lane by driving between the east and west medians, diagonally across the crosswalk. Fink then continued west toward his home, driving against the flow of traffic.

[6] Russell knew Fink from other frustrating encounters with him at the school crossing zone and immediately reported his actions to the police. The next day, a police officer located Fink at his home and issued him a traffic citation. The State later amended this citation to allege that Fink committed two Class C traffic infractions: (1) failure to obey a school crossing guard; and (2) failure to drive on the right-hand side of a divided highway.

[7] Fink disputed the citation, and the matter proceeded to bench trial. During trial, Russell and Fink both testified that Fink stopped his vehicle in the eastbound lane when Bobby instructed him to stop, merged his vehicle into the westbound lane when Russell instructed him to merge, and then drove diagonally across the crosswalk and back into the eastbound lane before continuing west toward his home, driving against the flow of traffic.

[8] The trial court ultimately found that Fink committed failure to obey a school crossing guard but not failure to drive on the right-hand side of a divided highway. For his lone Class C infraction, Fink was fined $153.50.

Discussion and Decision

[9] On appeal, Fink challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he committed failure to obey a school crossing guard. “[T]raffic infractions are civil, rather than criminal, in nature and the State must prove the commission of the infraction by only a preponderance of the evidence.” Rosenbaum v. State, 930 N.E.2d 72, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses.” Id. “Rather, we look to the evidence that best supports the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Id. “If there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting the trial court's judgment, it will not be overturned.” Id.

[10] Failure to obey a school crossing guard is a Class C traffic infraction based on Indiana Code § 9-21-8-41.5(a). That statute provides: “A person who drives a vehicle shall obey the instructions of a school crossing guard to stop the vehicle before entering a school crossing zone.” Ind. Code § 9-21-8-41.5(a). Fink claims the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he committed this infraction because he and Russell both testified that Fink stopped his vehicle in the eastbound lane when Bobby instructed him to stop and then merged his vehicle into the westbound lane when Russell instructed him to merge.

[11] Fink, however, ignores what happened next. The undisputed evidence shows that, as he entered the school crossing zone in the westbound lane, Fink drove diagonally across the crosswalk and back into the eastbound lane before continuing west toward his home, driving against the flow of traffic. Because Bobby had stopped Fink's vehicle moments earlier to prevent him from entering the school crossing zone while driving west in the eastbound lane, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Fink failed to obey Bobby's instruction.

[12] We affirm.

affirmed

FOOTNOTES

1.   Exhibit 2 is a police officer's bodycam footage that depicts the crossing zone at issue in this case. The image above is a screenshot from that footage.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.