Brenda Stoss Salina Municipal Court

Brenda Stoss Salina Municipal Court

Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division March 4, 2015

Shooting of Michael Brown August 9, 2014 Brought to public attention issues of income inequality, relationship between law enforcement and black community, use of force, and other volatile issues DOJ investigation opened September 4, 2014

City officials consistently set maximizing revenue as the priority for law enforcement. City directs aggressive enforcement of city codes. City and police leadership pressure officers to issue citations independent of public safety needs. Memo from Finance Director to Police Chief regarding need to increase revenue. Municipal Judge noted to have increased revenue, partly due to implementation of new fees DOJ report, page 10

Ferguson, Missouri revenues M.C. budgeted M.C. collected General Fund 2010 $1.38 million $11.07 million 2011 $1.41 million $11.44 million 2012 $1.92 million $2.11 million 2013 $2.11 million $2.46 million 2014 $2.63 million 2015 $3.09 million (projected) $13.26 million

2014 M.C. revenue 2010 population Ferguson, Missouri $2,630,000 21,000 (approx.) Kansas City, Kansas $4,405,935 145,786 Overland Park, Kansas $4,794,000 173,333 Wichita, Kansas $6,106,291 382,386

Court clerk also engaged in the goal of generating revenue April 2011 memo from clerk to Judge and Police Chief, concerns with prosecutor generating fines of only $76 on a case that previously would have generated $400 We need to keep up our revenue DOJ report, pages 14-15

Concern: Judge does not listen to testimony, does not review criminal history of the defendant, does not listen to all pertinent testimony before rendering a verdict It may reduce revenue, but maybe it s more important that cases are handled properly and fairly City manager response: Acknowledge issues, but it goes without saying the City cannot afford to lose efficiency in our Courts, nor experience any decrease in our Fines or Forfeitures DOJ report, page 15

2007 citation for 2 parking violations Original fines totaled $151 plus fees By 2014, she had paid $550, had multiple warrants issued, had been arrested several times and spent time in jail Still owed $541 Numerous documented cases with similar harsh penalties DOJ report, page 42

Concerns about process for individual who wants to contest a charge in Ferguson Municipal Court Attempts to raise legal claims are met with retaliatory conduct Prosecuting attorney red light cases Municipal Judge contested case defendant represented by counsel Brady issue with testifying officer not disclosed DOJ report, page 43-44

The judicial power of this state shall be vested exclusively in one court of justice, which shall be divided into one supreme court, district courts, and such other courts as are provided by law; and all courts of record shall have a seal. The supreme court shall have general administrative authority over all courts in this state. Kansas Constitution, Article 3, Section1

K.S.A. 12-4103 This code is intended to provide for the just determination of every proceeding for violation of city ordinances. Its provisions shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay. If no procedure is provided by this code, the court shall proceed in any lawful manner consistent with any applicable law and not inconsistent with this code.

Barriers to resolving a case in Ferguson Municipal Court Lack of transparency regarding rights & responsibilities Requiring in-person appearance to resolve most municipal charges Policies that exacerbate the harms of Missouri s law requiring license suspension for failure to appear on a moving violation Basic access deficiencies that frustrate the ability to resolve charges that do not require in-court appearances Legally inadequate fine assessment methods that do not appropriately consider a person s ability to pay and do not provide alternatives to fines for those living in or near poverty DOJ report, page 44

Lack of transparency: Deficiencies in citations/notice to appear Information on payment options not available What rights the defendant has What the consequences are for oversights Decisions sometimes up to discretion of clerks Even established procedures are not reliable

K.S.A. 12-4204 requires a Notice to Appear to describe the offense charged. K.S.A. 12-4205a provides that a Notice to Appear for Municipal Court is sufficient if it contains the Information required by K.S.A. 8-2106.

Requirements for an NTA in K.S.A. 8-2106: Name and address Type of vehicle Hazardous material Accident State registration number Commercial vehicle Offenses charged Date and time to appear Officer signature Other pertinent information

Additional requirements for NTA: Notice of possible suspension per K.S.A. 8-2110 Applicable fine and costs, if scheduled Right to trial Court address K.S.A. 8-2106 says an officer who doesn t provide the information is guilty of misconduct and subject to possible removal from office

Requiring in court appearances: Substantially more offenses than statutorily required Increases likelihood of missed court appearances Community fears of what happens when you appear in court

Hardship caused by state DL suspension process: Familiar cycle of failing to appear, loss of driving privileges, loss of employment, etc. Local court processes possibly add to the cycle (fail to appear warrants and bonds)

Missouri Revised Statues 302.341.1 K.S.A. 8-2110 Failure to comply with traffic citation Requires 30 day notice, can assess fee for mailing Requires assessment of reinstatement fee and allows for surcharge Can apply for restricted driving privileges

Court operations make it difficult to resolve even charges that do not require court appearance: Irregular/unreliable court hours and access Online payment option not available Insufficient information on citation

High fines and lack of ability to pay determinations: Multiple citations from single stop are common Concentration of multiple jurisdictions increases burden No process to request modification due to financial circumstances Established payment plan options are severe Community service program is limited

K.S.A. 8-2118(d) provides Traffic offenses classified as traffic infractions by this section shall be classified as ordinance traffic infractions by those cities adopting ordinances prohibiting the same offenses. A schedule of fines for all ordinance traffic infractions shall be established by the municipal judge in the manner prescribed by K.S.A. 12-4305, and amendments thereto. Such fines may vary from those contained in the uniform fine schedule contained in subsection (c).

K.S.A. 12-4305 provides (in part) The municipal judge shall establish a schedule of fines which shall be imposed for municipal ordinance violations that are classified as ordinance traffic infractions. Also, the municipal judge may establish a schedule of fines which shall be imposed for the violation of certain other ordinances. Any fine so established shall be within the minimum and maximum allowable fines established by ordinance for such offenses by the governing body.

Examples of fines in Ferguson Municipal Court: Manner of walking $302 Disturbing the peace $427 High grass and weeds $531 Resisting arrest $777 Failure to Obey $792 Failure to comply $ 52

Most violations on State traffic fine schedule for Kansas are $45 - $75 K.S.A. 8-1537 Improper use of roadway by pedestrian $45 K.S.A. 40-3104 No proof of insurance $300/$800 K.S.A. 8-262 Driving while suspended 3 rd or subsequent under certain conditions $1500 plus mandatory 90 days K.S.A. 8-1567 DUI $750/$1250 also provides that assessments and costs be paid within 90 days

Required assessments: K.S.A. 12-4116 K.S.A. 12-4117 K.S.A. 12-4119 K.S.A. 12-4120

Court uses warrant process as a means of securing payment of fines Use of warrants does not promote public safety Bond practices are unclear and inconsistent Policy does not allow bond that is posted to be applied to fines that are owed

Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed. 2d 586 (1970) We hold only that a State may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine...we hold only that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status. Williams, at 243-244

Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S. Ct. 668, 28 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1971) Since Texas has legislated a fines only policy for traffic offenses, that statutory ceiling cannot, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, limit the punishment to payment of the fine if one is able to pay it, yet convert the fine into a prison term for an indigent defendant without the means to pay his fine.

The State is not powerless to enforce judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine; indeed, a different result would amount to inverse discrimination since it would enable an indigent to avoid both the fine and imprisonment for nonpayment whereas other defendants must always suffer one or the other conviction. Tate, at 399

Bearden v. Georgia,461 U.S. 660 (1983) The resolution of the issue involves a delicate balance between the acceptability, and indeed wisdom, of considering all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence for an individual and the impermissibility of imprisoning a defendant solely because of his lack of financial resources. p. 661

If the probationer has willfully refused to pay the fine or restitution when he has the means to pay, the State is perfectly justified in using imprisonment as a sanction to enforce collection... But if the probationer has made all reasonable efforts to pay the fine or restitution and yet cannot do so through no fault of his own, it is fundamentally unfair to revoke probation automatically without considering whether adequate alternative methods of punishing the defendant are available. Bearden, p. 668-669

Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 16 No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud

City of Wichita v. Lucero, 255 Kan. 437, 874 P. 2d 1144 (1994) The imposition of a fine, costs and order of restitution against an indigent criminal defendant is not inherently unconstitutional. However, before an indigent defendant may be incarcerated for failure to pay a fine, costs, or restitution it must be shown not only that the defendant is indigent but that the defendant has willfully refused to make such payment or has failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to pay.

Changes necessary to remedy unlawful practices and restore public trust: 1. Establish written policies and procedures and make them available to the public 2. Provide complete and accurate information to a person charged with a violation in municipal court 3. Change procedures for tracking case activity and limit charges requiring court appearance; improve accessibility of payment options 4. Review preset fine amounts and implement system for defendant to seek fine reduction

5. Develop a system to determine ability to pay when assessing fines, and a system to track fines paid separate from other fees 6. Revise payment plan procedures and options for payment alternatives 7. Ensure trial procedures are in full compliance with due process requirements 8. Discontinue use of arrest warrants as a means of collecting fines and fees

9. Provide a system to resolve warrants without arrest 10. Modify bond amounts and bonding and detention procedures 11. Release driver s license suspension upon appearance of the defendant 12. Close out cases that are open only due to failure to appear or bond forfeiture charges 13. Collaborate with the State and other municipalities to implement reforms