Municipal Courts too Quick to Levy Fines and Need Major Reforms — Report
New Jersey’s 515 municipal courts collected over $400 million last year. New report concludes system is due for an overhaul that prioritizes impartial justice over making money
Credit: Creative Commons
The Supreme Court document, called The Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines, and Fees, seeks to restructure a system that many have complained prioritizes generating revenues over carrying out impartial justice. The problem has a serious impact on the indigent, as defendants originally cited for something as minor as littering can end up with jail time due to the imposition of multiple fees and fines. Also, given that municipal judges are politically appointed, they may fear they will lose their jobs if they don’t levy enough fees to satisfy local officials.
Municipal courts in New Jersey collected more than $400 million last year, retaining more than half that for local budgets.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner charged a special committee, formed 16 months ago, with examining complaints about the municipal courts. The committee found “a number of significant concerns where aggressive reform is needed.” Its report, which spans 74 pages but balloons to more than 1,300 with appendices, recommends 49 reforms that follow eight principles, including that “The Municipal Courts, as part of the Judiciary, are separate from the Legislative and Executive branches and are not a revenue-generating arm of the government.”
Putting cap on fines
Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner
Advocates praised the report and Rabner’s order as important initial steps toward making the municipal court system fairer.
“We know municipal court abuses have disproportionately affected people with low incomes and people of color,” said Jeanne LoCicero, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, adding these courts can “prioritize revenue over justice.” Because municipal officials have a lot of control over local courts — mayors and councils appoint the judges to three-year terms — “there are political pressures involved and a person can have widely different experiences from municipality to municipality.”
Patricia McKernan, the chief operating officer of Volunteers of America Delaware Valley who recently researched the role of money in municipal courts and issues related to criminal justice debt as part of her work on her doctorate in social work, praised the report’s recommendations. “I think it is a step in the right direction to see the Supreme Court making these kinds of changes,” she said. “They are long overdue.”
This is not the first time that issues involving municipal courts have come to light. They were initially brought up as part of a 2014 review by the New Jersey Bar Association of judicial independence. Last September, the bar’s Subcommittee on Judicial Independence in the Municipal Courts released a report covering similar ground to that of the judiciary report released yesterday.
Not all agreed with the criticism. In a statement, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, defended the work of municipal court personnel and noted that some of the money from fees and fines goes to support the state court system, as well. “Municipal judges, prosecutors, public defenders and court administrators take their offices seriously and exercise their duties ethically and responsibly. All undergo training before taking office. All work under the jurisdiction and are audited by of the Administrative Office of the Courts … Further we hope all recognize the value local elected officials place on the efficient and effective administration of justice at the local level and the support — financial and otherwise — provided to the State Judiciary.”
“We know municipal court abuses have disproportionately affected people with low incomes and people of color,” said Jeanne LoCicero, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, adding these courts can “prioritize revenue over justice.” Because municipal officials have a lot of control over local courts — mayors and councils appoint the judges to three-year terms — “there are political pressures involved and a person can have widely different experiences from municipality to municipality.”
Patricia McKernan, the chief operating officer of Volunteers of America Delaware Valley who recently researched the role of money in municipal courts and issues related to criminal justice debt as part of her work on her doctorate in social work, praised the report’s recommendations. “I think it is a step in the right direction to see the Supreme Court making these kinds of changes,” she said. “They are long overdue.”
This is not the first time that issues involving municipal courts have come to light. They were initially brought up as part of a 2014 review by the New Jersey Bar Association of judicial independence. Last September, the bar’s Subcommittee on Judicial Independence in the Municipal Courts released a report covering similar ground to that of the judiciary report released yesterday.
Municipal budgetary pressures
“The pressures of budgetary needs of the municipality and the local governing body, and the overall need for revenue to be generated along with a pervasive bias towards the police, cannot continue to be the focus of the municipal courts and of judicial appointments in the municipal court,” the NJBA report noted.Not all agreed with the criticism. In a statement, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, defended the work of municipal court personnel and noted that some of the money from fees and fines goes to support the state court system, as well. “Municipal judges, prosecutors, public defenders and court administrators take their offices seriously and exercise their duties ethically and responsibly. All undergo training before taking office. All work under the jurisdiction and are audited by of the Administrative Office of the Courts … Further we hope all recognize the value local elected officials place on the efficient and effective administration of justice at the local level and the support — financial and otherwise — provided to the State Judiciary.”
The intertwining of justice with revenues is not a problem unique to
New Jersey. In 2015, as a result of the shooting death of an unarmed
black man in Ferguson, Missouri by a white police officer, the U.S.
Department of Justice issued a report that found the issuance of
excessive fines, the use of arrest warrants to compel people to pay
court-imposed fees and the jailing of people who missed payments.
When a person winds up in court, it’s most likely to be in municipal court. New Jersey’s 515 municipal courts — some towns share a court or have formed joint courts — handle traffic offenses, disorderly persons and petty disorderly persons offenses, and violations of municipal ordinances. They also handle instances of domestic violence and some housing matters. This is why it is critically important that these courts be fair, Rabner said in a statement.
Rabner had written a letter to all judges, both municipal and in the Superior Court, last April that anticipated the report released yesterday. In it, he discussed “disturbing practices” of two municipal court judges. In one case, a judge had diverted fines in a way that gave more money to the municipalities where he served. The other was a judge who sentenced a man to five days in jail for the inability to pay a $239 fine for littering.
“The imposition of punishment should in no way be linked to a town's need for revenue,” Rabner wrote. “And defendants may not be jailed because they are too poor to pay court-ordered financial obligations.”
The report recommends that the judiciary begin monitoring the imposition of fines for contempt of court — typically failing to obey the court or being disrespectful in court — to ensure that such fines are justified. It also suggested the development of sentencing guidelines for discretionary penalties and the mandatory scheduling of an ability-to-pay hearing upon a defendant’s nonpayment of fines. (Scroll to the end of this story for a table that shows Contempt of Court Assessments in all 21 counties.)
Another set of suggestions, some of which would require legislative approval, seek to improve judicial independence. Among these are the creation of transparent and impartial appointment and reappointment processes for judges, increasing judges’ terms to five years.
“Establishing a uniform and transparent judicial appointment process will elevate the experience of the public, who can come to court to have their case resolved knowing local politics and financial pressures are not driving the judicial process,” said John E. Keefe Jr., president of the state bar, in support of the judicial recommendations and the entire report.
The report also calls for the creation of a working group of members of all three branches of government to implement the reforms and tackle other relevant issues.
So far, officials have signaled a willingness to work on court reform.
“Governor Murphy applauds the New Jersey Supreme Court’s willingness to take a hard look at our municipal court system and propose reforms with the goal of making the system fairer for all,” said Murphy spokesman Dan Bryan. “As a candidate, the Governor noted the need to ensure that municipalities do not excessively rely on municipal fines, which can disproportionately impact poorer residents.”
A spokesman for the Senate Democrats agreed. “This is a significant report with findings and recommendations that we are taking seriously,” said Richard McGrath. “The principles of justice and fairness that we followed in making the historic reforms to the bail system that became a national model will guide us in making any reforms to municipal courts. The emphasis of the legal process should be on the fair administration of justice that does not punish anyone unfairly simply because they do not have the ability to pay.”
O’Scanlon predicted at least some of the reforms will be unpopular with municipal officials and indeed the municipalities’ representative on the court committee did not support it.
The league said that while it commends the work of the committee, “Unfortunately, the report draws many of its conclusions based on anecdotal accounts, including those from other states and the recommendations do not address the impact of state-imposed mandates and requirements.” It said that of the $400 million in fees collected in 2017 “nearly half these funds are a direct result of State surcharges to fund state priorities. While the report itself notes the negative impact of these State mandated charges on indigent defendants, not one of the Committee’s recommendations aim to address this burden.”
Michael Cerra, the league’s assistant executive director, noted that municipalities pay all the costs of local courts. “It comes from the municipal budget,” he said. “Court fees are used to offset the costs but they don’t come close to covering all costs. You couldn’t run a municipal court off of court fees alone.”
On the other hand, neither LoCicero nor McKernan believe the recommendations go far enough. For instance, McKernan said one of the challenges many people face is getting legal representation and the report does nothing to address that.
“Folks who don’t have the resources to hire an attorney are forced to make an application and pay a fee for a public defender. That can be problematic for them,” McKernan said, adding the application fee can be as high as $200.
The judiciary is seeking public comment on its report through September 17.
Source: Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines, and Fees
When a person winds up in court, it’s most likely to be in municipal court. New Jersey’s 515 municipal courts — some towns share a court or have formed joint courts — handle traffic offenses, disorderly persons and petty disorderly persons offenses, and violations of municipal ordinances. They also handle instances of domestic violence and some housing matters. This is why it is critically important that these courts be fair, Rabner said in a statement.
Rabner: They must adhere to ‘Judiciary’s high standards’
“It is often said that municipal courts, which handle millions of cases every year, are the face of the Judiciary,” he said. “We must make sure that they adhere to the Judiciary’s high standards of integrity, independence, and fairness. As part of that effort, courts are responsible to see that justice is carried out without regard to any outside pressures.”Rabner had written a letter to all judges, both municipal and in the Superior Court, last April that anticipated the report released yesterday. In it, he discussed “disturbing practices” of two municipal court judges. In one case, a judge had diverted fines in a way that gave more money to the municipalities where he served. The other was a judge who sentenced a man to five days in jail for the inability to pay a $239 fine for littering.
“The imposition of punishment should in no way be linked to a town's need for revenue,” Rabner wrote. “And defendants may not be jailed because they are too poor to pay court-ordered financial obligations.”
'Devastating to individuals and families'
The major concerns voiced by the report are over three “excessive” practices:- The imposition of fines beyond those associated with the original violation. These “ultimately have little to do with the fair administration of justice” and can start “an ongoing cycle of court involvement for defendants with limited resources.”
- The use of bench warrants and license suspensions “as collection mechanisms.” Currently 2.5 million bench warrants for failure to appear in court and failure to pay fees are outstanding, with some dating back to the mid-1980s. These, too, can “be devastating to individuals and families.”
- The use of discretionary contempt assessments, with all amounts collected going to municipalities. From 2015 through 2017, $22 million in contempt fines were levied. Sometimes, these assessments “have more to do with generating revenue than the fair administration of justice.”
Fines that ‘have little to do’ with justice
“The committee was deeply concerned about what can be a never-ending imposition of mandatory financial obligations that have little to do with the fair administration of justice,” said Atlantic County Assignment Judge Julio Mendez, who chaired the committee. “They can be financially overwhelming, can disproportionately impact the poor, and often become the starting point for an ongoing cycle of court involvement for individuals with limited resources.”The report recommends that the judiciary begin monitoring the imposition of fines for contempt of court — typically failing to obey the court or being disrespectful in court — to ensure that such fines are justified. It also suggested the development of sentencing guidelines for discretionary penalties and the mandatory scheduling of an ability-to-pay hearing upon a defendant’s nonpayment of fines. (Scroll to the end of this story for a table that shows Contempt of Court Assessments in all 21 counties.)
Another set of suggestions, some of which would require legislative approval, seek to improve judicial independence. Among these are the creation of transparent and impartial appointment and reappointment processes for judges, increasing judges’ terms to five years.
“Establishing a uniform and transparent judicial appointment process will elevate the experience of the public, who can come to court to have their case resolved knowing local politics and financial pressures are not driving the judicial process,” said John E. Keefe Jr., president of the state bar, in support of the judicial recommendations and the entire report.
Controversial recommendation
A final, and likely very controversial recommendation, is for the mandatory consolidation of courts, particularly of smaller courts, which may meet only once or twice a month and have fewer than 1,000 filings a year.The report also calls for the creation of a working group of members of all three branches of government to implement the reforms and tackle other relevant issues.
So far, officials have signaled a willingness to work on court reform.
“Governor Murphy applauds the New Jersey Supreme Court’s willingness to take a hard look at our municipal court system and propose reforms with the goal of making the system fairer for all,” said Murphy spokesman Dan Bryan. “As a candidate, the Governor noted the need to ensure that municipalities do not excessively rely on municipal fines, which can disproportionately impact poorer residents.”
A spokesman for the Senate Democrats agreed. “This is a significant report with findings and recommendations that we are taking seriously,” said Richard McGrath. “The principles of justice and fairness that we followed in making the historic reforms to the bail system that became a national model will guide us in making any reforms to municipal courts. The emphasis of the legal process should be on the fair administration of justice that does not punish anyone unfairly simply because they do not have the ability to pay.”
‘Policing for profit’
The Republicans support the report as well. Sen. Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth), offered to sponsor several of the recommendations.
Sen. Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth)
O’Scanlon predicted at least some of the reforms will be unpopular with municipal officials and indeed the municipalities’ representative on the court committee did not support it.
The league said that while it commends the work of the committee, “Unfortunately, the report draws many of its conclusions based on anecdotal accounts, including those from other states and the recommendations do not address the impact of state-imposed mandates and requirements.” It said that of the $400 million in fees collected in 2017 “nearly half these funds are a direct result of State surcharges to fund state priorities. While the report itself notes the negative impact of these State mandated charges on indigent defendants, not one of the Committee’s recommendations aim to address this burden.”
Michael Cerra, the league’s assistant executive director, noted that municipalities pay all the costs of local courts. “It comes from the municipal budget,” he said. “Court fees are used to offset the costs but they don’t come close to covering all costs. You couldn’t run a municipal court off of court fees alone.”
On the other hand, neither LoCicero nor McKernan believe the recommendations go far enough. For instance, McKernan said one of the challenges many people face is getting legal representation and the report does nothing to address that.
“Folks who don’t have the resources to hire an attorney are forced to make an application and pay a fee for a public defender. That can be problematic for them,” McKernan said, adding the application fee can be as high as $200.
The judiciary is seeking public comment on its report through September 17.
Contempt of Court Assessments
| County | All filings | Contempt cases | Percent contempt | Contempt fines | Average fine per case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATLANTIC | 431,904 | 13,876 | 3.2 | $820,128 | $59.10 |
| BERGEN | ,844,873 | 37,912 | 2.1 | $1,195,063 | $31.52 |
| BURLINGTON | 615,522 | 27,995 | 4.5 | $3,084,351 | $110.18 |
| CAMDEN | 1,025,586 | 16,175 | 1.6 | $2,370,281 | $146.54 |
| CAPE MAY | 228,856 | 3,403 | 1.5 | $83,976 | $24.68 |
| CUMBERLAND | 218,832 | 3,805 | 1.7 | $304,903 | $80.13 |
| ESSEX | 2,815,726 | 30,879 | 1.1 | $1,782,119 | $57.71 |
| GLOUCESTER | 388,380 | 13,563 | 3.5 | $967,425 | $71.33 |
| HUDSON | 3,192,739 | 35,061 | 1.1 | $862,449 | $24.60 |
| HUNTERDON | 171,704 | 1,311 | 0.8 | $128,025 | $97.65 |
| MERCER | 617,006 | 17,535 | 2.8 | $1,648,769 | $94.03 |
| MIDDLESEX | 1,236,913 | 31,159 | 2.5 | $2,230,988 | $71.60 |
| MONMOUTH | 1,025,416 | 32,497 | 3.2 | $2,640,803 | $81.26 |
| MORRIS | 622,471 | 13,558 | 2.2 | $1,203,320 | $88.75 |
| OCEAN | 537,752 | 6,178 | 1.1 | $590,347 | $95.56 |
| PASSAIC | 995,090 | 23,123 | 2.3 | $771,794 | $33.38 |
| SALEM | 78,050 | 1,598 | 2.0 | $93,265 | $58.36 |
| SOMERSET | 340,707 | 3,041 | 0.9 | $199,461 | $65.59 |
| SUSSEX | 94,414 | 2,284 | 2.4 | $160,456 | $70.25 |
| UNION | 1,151,302 | 18,828 | 1.6 | $1,044,450 | $55.47 |
| WARREN | 135,324 | 3,169 | 2.3 | $139,932 | $44.16 |
| NEW JERSEY | 12,048,917 | 336,950 | 2.8 | $22,322,304 | $66.25 |
=====================
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF LAWS
I have been reading your stories regarding local
courts that must stop shaking N.J. residents down for cash.
I must inform you that these practices are not limited
to the municipal courts. They are widespread in the superior courts, the
Chancery (or general equity) divisions that handle tax sale foreclosures.
They threaten people with forfeiting their homes and with eviction if they fail
to pay taxes that may not even owe.
In my case, they stole my homestead property and place
of business that was valued at $475,000 for a property tax of $20,000.
The property was over-assessed by more than 40 percent and they knew it, but
they confiscated my home, anyway. Tragic, tragic, situation.
The Passaic County sheriff then filed criminal charges
against me for refusing to leave my home and they claimed they were
assaulted. The criminal case is pending for 7 years and 1 month
now. It has not gone to trial because of the massive corruption in the
judicial system. Although assault case must be brought to trial within 1
to 2 years, it has been more than 7 years now. A defendant has a
fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial. U.S. Const.,
amend.VI; N.J. Const. Art. I, ¶ 10. But the state judiciary
violated that right.
They also violated my constitutional rights guaranteed
by the Fifth Amendment and Article I, par. 20 of the state constitution that
prohibit private takings; no state court had jurisdiction or authority to
take a $475,000 homestead property belonging in full to Dr. Stephanatos and
deliver it to a third party (American Tax Funding, LLC). But these
corrupt judges did it anyway.
PRIVATE
TAKINGS ARE PROHIBITED BY BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS; AS A RESULT,
THE CHANCERY COURT EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS
VOID AB INITIO
We provide the following two precedential
New Jersey cases where the courts have ruled that an act of the legislature
cannot confer any right upon an individual to deprive persons of the ordinary
enjoyment of their property without just compensation. Here are the two seminal cases:
An act of the
legislature cannot confer any right upon an individual to deprive persons of
the ordinary enjoyment of their property without just compensation.
Oechsle v. Ruhl, 140 N.J. Eq. 355, 54 A.2d 462 (Ch.1947). Constitutional Law.
An act of the
legislature cannot confer upon individuals or private corporations, acting
primarily for their own profit, although for public benefit as well, any right
to deprive persons of the ordinary enjoyment of their property, except upon
condition that just compensation be first made to the owners. Pennsylvania
R. Co. v. Angel, 41 N.J. Eq. 316, 7 A. 432, 56 Am.Rep. 1 (1886).
See also the following federal law,
prohibiting private takings:
The
Public Use Clause provides that “one person's property may not be taken for the
benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even
though compensation is paid.” Hawaii
Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 241 (1984) (quoting Thompson v. Consol. Gas Corp., 300 U.S.
55, 80 (1937). Because a private taking cannot be constitutional even if
compensated, “[a] plaintiff that proves
that a government entity has taken its property for a private, not a public,
use is entitled to an injunction against the unconstitutional taking, not
simply compensation.” Carole Media
LLC v. N.J. Transit Corp., 550 F.3d 302, 308 (3d Cir. 2008).
They also violated the Fourth Amendment right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see also Article I,
Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution). They seized and confiscated a residential property valued at $475,000 (plus his business as well) for a small amount of disputed taxes. These are truly criminal acts.
If you can listen and publish my story, you will be
shocked of what these judges have been doing to shake people up for
money. They essentially blackmailing them: you either pay, or you lose
your home; you either pay or we put you to jail; you either pay or we
take your license away, and so on.
Here is a link, if you want to learn more about this
case. You will be really-really-really shocked regarding what they
have done to me.
See also the corruption tip regarding Ronald Lucas who
defrauded the police and firemen fund by claiming on the job disability.
We have evidence that Dr. Stephanatos was targeted by the government employees because he had filed lawsuits asking for equal protection regarding his excessive property taxes. That is why they violated the constitution and confiscated his property for taxes that he did not even owe. These are absolutely unethical and even criminal acts.