Warrant Resolution Work Group

June 8, 2000

Minutes

Doug Haake - OAC Staf

Call to Order Judge Peterson called the meeting to order and everyone introduced themselves.

Judge Peterson gave a brief history of efforts to resolve the warrant situation and committee members' prior involvement.

Charge Judge Peterson reviewed the workgroups charge and there was discussion about what was included and excluded. The warrants pilot project authorized by HB 2799 was discussed. This workgroup has oversight of the project, but Judge Robert McBeth is heading the project. It is expected the workgroup will provide support for Judge McBeth's efforts and that Judge McBeth will keep the workgroup advised of his activities. Judge Peterson reported that Judge McBeth intends to develop a simplified protocol for courts to use in dealing with warrants from others in state jurisdictions.

Timelines Judge Peterson reviewed the timeline for workgroups established by the BJA Project 2001.

Discussion topics and assignments The workgroup discussed the warrant problem and began to list topics that were worthy of discussion. The committee identified the following topics and assigned members to work on each topic:

Community License Reinstatement Program (Restorative Justice)

Tom McBride, Mike Shaw and Howard Delaney

Warrant Resolution (amnesty), Warrant Policy, Warrants Dockets, Warrants Sunset

Judge Peterson, Kathy Knox

Centralized Payment of Court Financial Obligations

Fred Thompson, Sue Carlson, Tony Susinski

Warrants Pilot Project (HB 2799)

Judges McBeth and Lukevich

Public Awareness

Sue Carlson, Judges Frazier and Peterson

FTA Reduction

Tony Susinski

Prisoner Transport, State Versus County Warrants, Pre Versus Post Adjudication Warrants

Karen Daniels, Larry Erickson, Jim Thatcher, Tom McBride, Debbie Wilke, Kathy Knox

Decriminalization

Dick Van Wagenen, Howard Delaney, Kathy Knox, Fred Thompson

Members addressing each topic were asked to bring a brief, one page, description of the issues their topic raises relative to the warrant issue with suggested solutions or discussion ideas to the next meeting for large group discussion.

Meeting Schedule

July 6, 2000, 9:30 to 3:30, location to be determined.
August 10, 2000, 9:30 to 3:30, location to be determined.
September 7 and 8, 2000 -- tentative, 2 day session. Location and times to be determined.
September 28, 2000, 9:30 to 3:30, location to be determined.

Topic Discussion

     Community License Reinstatement Program (Restorative Justice) - The workgroup opted to use license reinstatement terminology as the concept of restorative justice has some negative connotations. This is a program that is in effect in Spokane County. The program works to get those with DWLS 3^rd for primarily financial reasons reinstated and address some of the underlying problems that might have lead to being suspended. The program has been well received and should pay for itself after a start up period. Spokane has exported the program to adjoining counties and made presentations around the state.

Discussion revolved around how to implement the program in more jurisdictions. Options discussed included state mandate and provision of assistance to essentially local programs. Funding alternatives were suggested including state funding on a revolving loan schedule and grants.

Concerns are jurisdictions without the resources to provide the services Spokane's program has available.

     Centralized Payment - This suggestion is essentially a proposal that there be one entity that can accept payments for court imposed financial obligations. The idea being to get courts out of collections. New Mexico is said to have implemented a system wherein payment for traffic infractions go to the equivalent of DOL. Courts only become involved when there is a request for due process. The workgroup also discussed the concept as it might be applied to other types of cases.

Concerns identified included local governments receiving their share of revenues, prioritization of collection, consequences for not paying, and effect on court contracts with collection agencies.

DOL has been suggested as the agency to take on this responsibility. The committee felt DOL should be represented on the committee if this discussion is to continue.

     Warrant Sweeps - Spokane was prepared to do a sweep just before I-695 passed. The program was scrapped when it appeared money to carry it out would not be available. The concept of sweeps was discussed along with a suggestion of a related amnesty period. The efficacy of amnesties and sweeps is open to discussion. Amnesties in Seattle and Tacoma did not result in clearing many warrants. Sweeps are untried in Washington to date.

     FTA Reduction - It was clarified that this topic is intended to be a discussion of efforts to prevent warrants. A number of local jurisdictions have used volunteers or court staff to call people to remind them of arraignment dates. Those jurisdictions that have tried it report that the phone calls have decreased incidents of failure to appear. It was hoped that doctors and dentists have followed this practice for years and that even otherwise responsible people can benefit from the effort.

Other ideas that might encourage court attendance included providing transportation, perhaps by voucher or by agreement that a court hearing notice could satisfy bus fare. It was noted that the cost of a taxi might be cheaper than the expense related to an FTA and warrant when jail time or multiple court hearings are factored in.

The idea of night courts came up during a couple of different discussions. Those courts that have experience with running night courts have found that they do not have a positive effect on attendance. Those who are going to appear will appear, even if it is a hardship; those that are not going to will not no matter what hours the court is open.

     Decriminalization of DWLS 3^rd - Discussion of this topic revolved around the justification for a criminal sanction that the courts do not have the resources or will to enforce. A related issue is the use of limited resources to penalize a minor offense when resources are lacking to penalize more serious offenses. The committee felt that looking at crimes other than DWLS 3^rd might be productive. Members asked if data were available that would provide information about the charges underlying warrants.

Other Business

The workgroup determined to change the workgroup's name to "Warrant Resolution Workgroup".