Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Legal Services
|
TO: |
Toni Wheeler, Interim Director of Legal Services
|
|
FROM: |
Scott J. Miller, Staff Attorney
|
|
Date: |
November 20, 2006
|
|
RE: |
Ordinance 8051 – Traffic Fines and Court Costs |
Introduction
During the budget process earlier this year, I prepared the attached memorandum discussing the impact of House Bill 2122, which imposed a $10 increase in the State of Kansas fees assessed upon conviction in Municipal Court. The fees imposed by that legislation must be collected as part of the court costs in Municipal Court cases. That bill also had some unforeseen consequences on our operations because of a limitation contained in Section 1-113 of our City Code.
Section 1-113 limits the amount of court costs that can be collected upon conviction in Municipal Court to no more than the amount of any fine assessed. It does not, however, specify whether court costs in this context include the State of Kansas fees. The total amount of court costs that should be assessed, according to our ordinances and Kansas law, is $52.00. Many of our traffic fines are less than that amount. As a result, because the Kansas assessment is required by law to be paid in full in every case, there have been situations where we have been unable to collect the full amount of court costs that would otherwise be due under the ordinance. The net effect is that some of the court costs that had previously been allocated to the City are now being allocated to the State of Kansas, and the same amount of court costs is not charged in every case.
In addition, during the process of examining the court cost provisions of our ordinances, I also examined the fine amounts levied on traffic infractions and other similar violations to determine whether we should recommend a change in those amounts. As a result of the comparison of the total of the fine and court cost amount per infraction with identical convictions rendered under State laws, I recommend that a small change in fine amounts be adopted.
Court Costs
The amount of the City’s court cost assessment is set at $32.50 in two sections of the City Code, Sections 1-113 and 12-105. The authority to establish court costs by ordinary ordinance is granted by Charter Ordinance 17. In addition to the City’s portion of the court costs, $19.50 in fees is collected on behalf of the State of Kansas, bringing the total to $52.00.
Sections 1-113 and 12-105, while somewhat redundant, are not written identically. Section 1-113 contains the language limiting the amount of court costs assessed to no more than the amount of the fine levied in a given case. It does not, however, discuss State of Kansas fees. Section 12-105, on the other hand, discusses State fees, but does not contain the limiting language that caps court costs in the amount of the fine. There is no clear purpose for having both of these sections in the City Code, and the draft ordinance included with this memorandum repeals Section 1-113 and retains Section 12-105.
This effectively eliminates the language capping the court costs at the amount of the fine. Although there is nothing legally wrong with having such a cap and one could easily be included if the City Commission desires, there are administrative difficulties created by having court costs that must be collected in a wide variety of amounts depending on the fine that is imposed. Having one set court cost amount is more efficient for Municipal Court operations. Judge Randy McGrath has contacted me to request that the cap language not be included in the redrafted ordinance, as such a provision is atypical and difficult to administer.
The elimination or limitation of the cap language is important because, under the existing ordinance, the State could raise the fees it imposes at any time which would effectively divert part of the court cost revenue currently received by the City to the State of Kansas. The City is responsible for paying the expenses involved in running the Municipal Court. The State of Kansas, by and large, is not. As court costs are meant to recoup some of the expenses involved in the administration of justice, I recommend that Section 1-113 be repealed in favor of the existing Section 12-105.
Fines
Generally, the penalties assessed upon conviction of an offense in Municipal Court should be at least as stringent as the comparable penalties that would be assessed in District Court. This is the reason that the penalties for crimes like theft must at least be equal under the city ordinance to the penalties specified in the analogous Kansas Statute. In the case of serious offenses, this is usually fairly transparent. Things get considerably more difficult, however, in the case of minor traffic violations because of the amounts of money involved, the nature of scheduled fines and the difference in fees and court cost charged by the municipal and district courts.
A comparison between our Municipal Court and a Kansas District Court shows some variance in the total amount charged upon conviction for several common traffic offenses. The listed amounts include all total fines, fees and costs.
|
Offense |
State of Kansas |
City of Lawrence |
|
Speeding 10 MPH over the limit |
$90 |
$82 |
|
Stop light violation |
$120 |
$112 |
|
Fail to signal movement |
$120 |
$112 |
|
Illegal Turn |
$120 |
$102 |
|
Illegal Parking |
$90 |
$30 |
|
Handicap Parking |
$110 |
$50 |
The information presented shows that for non-parking related offenses the total charged by the City is $8 less than the amount charged in a State prosecution. On parking related violations, the amount charged by the City is significantly less, mostly because the of the fact that the State of Kansas imposes court costs on parking violations while the City of Lawrence does not.
The previous analysis is not meant to suggest that our current fine schedule illegally punishes offenders less severely than a state court would on a commensurate charge. The fine portions in our fine schedule are roughly equivalent to those imposed by the State fine schedule. The information does illustrate, however, that a person driving immediately outside of the city limits of Lawrence would pay a more significant total penalty for his or her traffic violation than the one that would be imposed for the same conduct within the City. In order to level this disparity for these traffic infractions, I recommend that we raise the minimum base fine amounts for these violations by $8. This is reflected in the language of the draft ordinance.
For parking related violations, raising our assessment to the same levels as the State of Kansas would be a significant increase. In an effort towards beginning to level the field, the draft ordinance raises the fees for illegal parking by $10, with the exception of meter and other similar citations. A final recommendation, although not mandated in the ordinance, is to request that the Municipal Court increase the fine charged for handicap parking to $100. This amount or more is charged for this offense by every peer city that I surveyed -- Olathe, Lenexa, Overland Park, Topeka, and Wichita. This change can be accomplished by an amendment to the fine schedule as opposed to an ordinance amendment.
Conclusion
Although any change in court costs and fines must be approached with caution, the changes suggested by the draft ordinance would result in total charges no greater than those imposed by every Kansas district court for equivalent offenses. If I can do anything else to assist with the consideration of these issues, please let me know.
Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Legal Services
|
TO: |
David L. Corliss, Interim City Manager
|
|
FROM: |
Scott J. Miller, Staff Attorney
|
|
Date: |
June 22, 2006
|
|
RE: |
HB 2122 & Effect on Municipal Court Fines and Court Costs |
Introduction
House Bill 2122, passed during the last legislative session, increases the amount of court costs assigned to state mandated programs by $10.00, raising these costs from $9.00 to $19.00. Currently, the City of Lawrence charges $32.50 in local court costs in addition to the state fees.
The City is allowed to assess local court costs as the result of the operation of Charter Ordinance 17, which exempts the City from that part of the Kansas Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts codified in K.S.A. 12-4117. That charter ordinance requires that the amount of court costs be set by ordinance. The City has two ordinances establishing the amount of court costs – Sections 1-113 and 12-105. Both sections are consistent in setting the amount of the City’s portions of the court costs at $32.50, but Section 12-105 also requires the City to assess Kansas fees that are required by statute.
This creates a situation that is somewhat confusing for the public. The amount listed as court costs in our ordinances is not the amount that is actually assessed because of the Kansas fees. To complicate matters more, the provisions of Section 1-113 mandate that court costs not be assessed in excess of the fine amount for a given offense. The problem from the Municipal Court’s perspective is whether or not to include the Kansas fees in this determination. If so, for offenses that are punished by minimum fines less than $19, we will be unable to lawfully collect enough court costs to pay the amount due to the State because of the operation of our ordinance. On the other hand, if these fees are not included in the court costs as they are in most municipal courts, members of the public will be faced with court costs assessments almost $20.00 than what is explicitly set forth in our ordinances.
Potential Solutions
Several solutions suggest themselves: