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