| |
79 - WRO screen change under BAIL options.
|
|
| Request Status Summary |
| Request Status |
Completed |
| Status Comment |
This request has been combined with ITG's 37 and 58. |
|
| Request Detail |
| Requestor Name: |
| |
Marusich, Tina D, Court Administrator for Puyallup Muni |
| Origination Date: |
| |
03/21/2011 |
| |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
| |
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
|
| Request Type: |
Change or Enhancement
|
| Which Systems are affected? |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
|
| Business Area: |
Warrants
|
| Communities Impacted: |
State Agencies
|
| Impact if not Resolved: |
Medium |
| Impact Description: |
|
If this issue is not corrected there will be continuing confusion among court staff as to whether a warrant hold is cash only or bondable. Also, there is potential liability if JIS states a hold is cash only, which causes a person in custody to be held because a bond was denied (due to incorrect JIS system docket entry).
|
|
|
| What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
|
Currently on the WRO screen when ordering warrants under the BAIL the options are: 1) Cash Bail or Bond/No PR; OR: 2) No Bail. There needs to be three options as follows:
1) Cash Bail Only/No PR;
2) Bondable;
3) No Bail.
In our Court (Puyallup Municipal), the current options do not fit (are not right). If the judge orders a cash only bail that means the defendant cannot post a bond. If we select the option on WRO for Cash Bail or Bond, the system generated note on CDK is "cash bail only". This has caused much confusion amongst staff, jails and bond companies. The bond companies often times will call us to clarify whether or not the warrant is truly bondable. And sometimes they don't believe our clerks that it is bondable based on the system entry that shows - "cash bail only". If a screen change is made to WRO allowing a bondable option, the correct system entry on CDK should reflect warrant is bondable. Also, there needs to be a change to the form that shows bond allowed.
|
| Expected Benefit: |
|
Warrants should correctly display whether there is truly a cash only hold or bond allowed. Also, the docket will properly show the correct message whether a warrant is "cash only" or "bondable". This is a very important distinction that under the present options record an incorrect system entry. The correction will lessen confusion among court staff, other jail facilities and bond companies and reduce potential liability (see impact description below).
|
| Any Additional Information: |
|
I am a member of the DMCMA however I have not brought this specific request to our board.
|
| Endorsement Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Vance, Aimee |
| Origination Date: |
| |
03/22/2011 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
| Endorser’s Explanation and Comments |
|
A comment was made from an endorsing group member to also modify this screen to allow bench warrants to be issued over the currently limited amount of $99,999.00
Often, warrants are issued for amounts greater than $100,000.00.
|
|
|
| AOC Analysis Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
09/29/2011
|
| Request Rationale |
| Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans: |
Yes |
| Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards: |
Yes |
| Breadth of Solution Benefit: |
Wide |
| Cost Estimates |
| Cost to Implement? |
444 hours |
| Feasibility Study needed? |
No |
| Court Level User Group |
| Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
|
| Request Summary: |
This request seeks to change the Warrant Order (WRO) screen in the Judicial Information System (JIS). On the WRO screen, the current options for the Bail field are: 1. Cash Bail or Bond/No PR and 2. No Bail. This request seeks to change the options to: 1. Cash Bail Only/No PR, 2. Bondable, and 3. No Bail. The docket entries should also be changed to reflect the new options. In addition, the endorsing group asks that the screen be enhanced to allow bench warrants to be issued for $100,000.00 and above. |
| Business Impacts: |
Implementing this enhancement will reduce confusion among court staff as to whether a warrant hold is cash only or bondable. It may also eliminate potential liability if JIS shows a hold is cash only, which causes a person in custody to be held because a bond was denied due to incorrect JIS system docket entry. |
| Summary of Proposed Solution |
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would change the Warrant Order (WRO) and Warrant Update (WRU) screens to provide the requested options. In conjunction with this change, AOC would also change the docket entries related to the WRO screen to properly reflect the new options. |
| Proposed Solution |
AOC would change the Warrant Order (WRO) and Warrant Update (WRU) screens to provide the requested options. In conjunction with this change, AOC would also change the docket entries related to the WRO screen to properly reflect the new options. The WRO screen would be changed to require a bail option to be checked in order to proceed. Currently, a warrant can be ordered without a box being checked. JIS would also be modified to accommodate the increased maximum bail amount.
This enhancement will also impact the Warrants Ordered Report, Outstanding Warrants Report, and Outstanding Warrants Report – Not Returned. Each of these reports will be modified to correctly reflect the changed options and larger bail amounts. In addition, warrant forms, both pre-printed and plain paper, will need to be modified to print the bail option of 'Cash or Bond'.
The Judicial Access Browser System (JABS) would be modified to properly display larger bail amounts.
|
| Additional Systems Affected |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
Judicial Access Browser System (JABS)
|
| Communities Impacted |
CLJ Managers
|
|
|
| Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Vance, Aimee R |
| Origination Date: |
| |
07/30/2012 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
| CLUG |
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
| Chair of Group |
Cynthia Marr |
| Date of Decision |
08/09/2012 |
| Decision |
| Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
| Priority Processing Status |
Prioritized |
| Ranking |
| Request Importance |
High |
|
| Scoring Detail |
Score / Possible |
| Business Value |
9.7 / 10 |
| Relative Priority |
8 / 10 |
| Cost |
4 / 5 |
| Complexity/Level of Effort |
9.6 / 10 |
| Risk |
5 / 5 |
| Benefit / Impact |
5 / 5 |
| Impact of Doing Nothing |
5 / 5 |
| Total Score |
46.3 / 50 |
|
|
| Implementation Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
|
Implementation Stage
|
In Progress
|
|
Prioritization Option:
|
Non-Prioritized
|
|
|
Comments:
|
|
This request has been combined with ITGs 37 and 58.
|
|
|
|
|
