He's facing suspension for a 'terrible injustice.' Why is he still on the bench?

For more than eighteen months, Stow Municipal Court Judge Kim Hoover has remained on the bench despite facing a two-year suspension from the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recommended that the judge be immediately suspended from his office without pay and barred from practicing law in Ohio for two years in a report filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in February 2023.

The board's recommendation stemmed from complaints Hoover used unlawful and "coercive tactics" to collect court-ordered fines, fees, and other court costs from defendants.

News 5 found Hoover's case is currently the oldest case involving legal or judicial misconduct on the court's docket.

Ohio Supreme Court response

Lisa Colbert, public information manager of the Ohio Supreme Court, declined our requests for an on-camera interview with the judges, citing state rules prohibiting the judiciary from commenting on pending cases.

Colbert e-mailed News 5 the following statement:

"Justices adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rule 2.10, which forbids public comments on pending cases to protect judicial integrity. The deliberative process is meticulous and necessary to uphold justice, even if time-consuming. While rulings may take time, this reflects the judiciary's dedication to fairness and thorough evaluation, ensuring just outcomes. We cannot provide a timeline on when rulings will be issued."

Judge Hoover also declined our request for an on-camera interview.

Ohio Board of Professional Conduct

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct names 15 cases where the board determined the judge acted inappropriately to collect fines and court costs from defendants in his courtroom.

In its report, the board wrote Hoover "engaged in misconduct totaling 64 violations that impacted the liberty and due process rights of 16 unrepresented defendants who were economically disadvantaged and, in some cases suffering from mental disorders and/or substance abuse."

For example, the report concluded a defendant who spent seven days in jail for failing to pay fines and court costs was only subject to two days behind bars.

The report also found Hoover "displayed an unwilling to acknowledge his misconduct and the harm caused by his actions."

Luke's story

Luke Ridenour is one of the 16 defendants named in the board's report.

Ridenour said he overdosed on heroin and was charged with possession of drug abuse instruments, a first-degree misdemeanor, in January 2021.

He said he had already scheduled an intake date at a rehab facility when he pleaded guilty in Hoover's courtroom.

"It wasn't my first rodeo," Ridenour said. "But I was trying to make that time my last."

He said he was shocked when Judge Hoover sentenced him to 30 days behind bars unless he could pay his fine and court costs that day.

"I've never experienced any type of injustice in court like I did that day," Ridenour said.

Ridenhour said he explained to the judge that he was broke.

Court documents show Judge Hoover then said:

"You're going to start calling mom and dad and grandma and as them for birthday presents early, OK?"

Ridenour said Judge Hoover then put him in jail for three or four hours until his mother was able to come up with enough cash to set him free.

"It wasn't really about me getting help," he said. "It was about me getting money for them."

'A terrible injustice'

Case Western Reserve University Law Cassandra Burke Robertson described Judge Hoover's actions, as outlined in the board's report, as "terrible."

Robertson is also the director of CWRU's Center for Professional Ethics.

"The judge, in fact, threatened to jail people for offenses that weren't jailable and for failing to pay costs that could not subject somebody to being jailed," she said.

"That is really a terrible injustice," she said. "That should not have happened."

Despite the judge's actions, she said it is unsurprising that the Ohio Supreme Court has yet to issue an opinion on Hoover's case.

"It can be very hard on parties who are waiting for an opinion," she acknowledged. "But I think that the court's view is generally that it's much more important to get it right than to get it done fast.

"A fast opinion that creates problems in the law is a bigger problem in the long run for everybody," she said.

Robertson said judges are obligated to encourage compliance with the law, including paying fines, fees, and other court costs.

"To the extent that people don't pay fines and costs that they have the ability to pay that puts a burden on the taxpayer that shouldn't be there," she said.

However, Robertson said judges should not use coercive tactics or threats to force people to pay court costs or fines they can't afford.

"It's a hard line to walk to encourage people, but not to coerce them or not to threaten them in regards to fines and costs that they don't have the ability to pay," she said. "Municipal judges all around the state are going to be very interested to see if they get some guidance (from the court's decision)."

Photo enforcement fee

But, in the meantime, Judge Hoover's methods have come under scrutiny again.

News 5 Investigators told you how Judge Hoover charged drivers a $100 fee to appeal speed camera tickets issued by the Village of Peninsula last December.

RELATED: Judge suspends $100 fee to fight Peninsula traffic camera citations

A nonprofit law firm wrote a letter to village officials that called the fee "unconstitutional."

Hoover suspended the fee and refunded drivers.

"It tells me so long as nothing happens, then he's going to keep doing the exact same thing, maybe just in a different way," Ridenour said.