Pubdate: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2014 The New York Times Company Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Author: Kenneth P. Thompson Note: Kenneth P. Thompson is the Brooklyn district attorney. WILL POT PACK NEW YORK'S COURTS? THIS week the New York City Police Department shifted from making arrests to issuing tickets for possessing small amounts of marijuana. The problem is that most people, frankly, do not understand how summons court, which processes such tickets, operates. A key concern is that issuing summonses for marijuana possession will result in an excessive amount of bench warrants for those who fail to appear in court, and the influx of these cases is sure to swell our already overburdened summons-court dockets. As of May 2014, there were already more than 73,000 bench warrants arising from summonses issued in 2013. These active warrants can ensnare a person in the criminal justice system in ways that the new approach tries to avoid. A person may completely forget about that seemingly innocuous ticket; if he or she is again stopped by the police, even for jaywalking or littering, the warrant will pop up, and the person will be arrested and held until he or she can be arraigned before a judge, which can take up to 24 hours. Summonses are most often issued for so-called quality-of-life offenses, and police officers write up a majority of them. In 2013, among the most frequent offenses were public consumption of alcohol (116,054 tickets), public urination (19,612) and being unlawfully in a park after dark (14,809). Unlawful marijuana possession, a violation, was in seventh place (12,495), but will rocket in the rankings under the new policy. The high number of petty offense tickets naturally invites scrutiny. Are they being issued in a fair manner? A recent report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that between 1980 and 2013, young minority men accounted for the greatest increases in misdemeanor arrests in New York City. Is the same true for the issuance of summonses? We do not know, because currently the summons form does not require information about the race and ethnicity of the summons recipient. That glaring omission should be remedied. Undoubtedly, most people would prefer to receive a ticket on the street instead of being taken away in handcuffs. However, many people wrongly believe they have received the equivalent of a parking ticket. Although people charged with public drinking or public urination can plead guilty and pay fines by mail, those charged with other offenses, like marijuana possession, must appear in the summons court on a designated date, often almost two months in the future. A failure to appear almost inevitably leads to a bench warrant. Even if the summons recipient does appear in court, there will probably be a significant wait before his or her case is called. Long lines plague most of the summons courts. Attorneys for indigent defendants have almost no time to discuss the merits of cases with clients and no privacy to confer, and the discussions often last less than 30 seconds once the case is called, which raises serious due process concerns. Although convictions for violations will not saddle defendants with criminal records, they are a matter of public record and may have consequences for, say, eligibility for public housing or application for citizenship. Those who do not contest their guilt and agree to pay a fine often request "time to pay" - that is, several weeks to mail in a check or money order. (Marijuana possession does not qualify for mail-in status at this time, though that may change in the future.) Unsurprisingly, even with additional time, many impoverished defendants find it difficult to pay a $100 fine for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk or a mandatory $50 fine for public urination. Failure to pay automatically triggers the entry of a civil judgment. As more employers are running credit checks on job applicants, civil judgments can sabotage hopes of securing employment (and, paradoxically, of having the money to satisfy the judgment). The city and the courts must commit to providing the summons operation with more and better resources. Most Brooklyn summonses go to a courtroom in Lower Manhattan; the city should move them back to Brooklyn, and seriously consider an alternative model, like community justice centers. The Red Hook Community Justice Center in southwest Brooklyn, which opened in 2000 thanks to a federal grant and serves three Brooklyn precincts, is well worth replicating. Summonses issued in the neighboring precincts are heard one day a week at the center. The process is orderly and efficient. If a defendant fails to appear, the warrant is often stayed while the court clerk tries to contact the defendant. The prosecutor, judge and defense counsel have time to consider each case. Fines are frequently not imposed, but the offender may have to participate in a "quality of life" class at the center. With this approach, the center successfully fosters justice and helps build stronger relationships between law enforcement and the community. As the number of summons cases grows with the administration's new marijuana policy, justice will stagger under the increasing weight. Before that happens, the city needs to overhaul its summons system. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom