JAC agenda 030218 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

NORTH CAROLINA POVERTY RESEARCH FUND 14 Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina should the threshold to our justice system be used as a toll booth to collect money for random programs created by the legislature.”67 North Carolina fees sweep broadly, including paying for sheriff’s pension plans, law enforcement officer insurance and retirement plans, and the like. State courts have typically ruled that criminal case fee assessments must be closely related to “judicial services rendered.”68 In State v. Johnson, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that criminal prosecution court fees should be “clearly incidental to the function”69 of the court and “reasonably related to the costs of administering the criminal justice system.”70 The Conference of State Court Administrators has warned against an increasing legislative turn to user fees to fund criminal justice systems while providing general budgetary support to state coffers stating, “The benefit derived from the efficient administration of justice is not limited to those who utilize the system for litigation, but is enjoyed by all those who would suffer if there was no such system—the entire body politic.”71 In the fiscal year 2015-16, the judicial branch in North Carolina disbursed about $266 million to the state treasury, over $71 million to local governments, over $44 million to other entities and about $351 million to citizens. The judicial branch operating budget was just a hair over $486 million.72 A revenue raising role can cast doubt on the fairness of state tribunals and erode trust between judicial tribunals and their constituents. Senator Shirley Randleman, one of the legislature’s principal proponents of fees, has explained that it is “all about the revenue.”73 It is unsurprising then that one of the district judges we interviewed observed many poor defendants she encountered thought “all [the courts] want is damn money.”74 Like greedy tax collectors. Second, even when costs and fees are constitutionally instituted, it is clear that they cannot be employed to put someone in jail because of inability to pay. To do so, the United States Supreme Court held, in Bearden v. Georgia, deprives a defendant of “his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine. Such a deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”75 The due process and equal protection requirements of the fourteenth amendment prohibit “punishing a person for his poverty.”76 Turner v. Rogers, more recently, ratified the principle.77 As a result, state and local courts must inquire, through a hearing, into a person’s ability to pay prior to imposing incarceration for nonpayment. Courts have an affirmative constitutional duty to conduct these determinations sua sponte. To understate, this does not regularly and uniformly occur in North Carolina. Many state judges have indicated they are unaware of Bearden’s requirements. Both anecdotal reports and court observations demonstrate substantial failures to comply with this fourteenth amendment demand, particularly in some judicial districts in the state. The Charlotte Observer reports that, each day, 67 Safety Net for Abused Persons v. Segura, 692 So.2d 1038, 1042 (La. 1997). 68 LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 341 (Tex. 1986). See also, Crocker v. Finley, 459 N.E.2d 1346 (Ill. 1984); Fent v. State, 236 P.3d 61 (Okla. 2010); People v. Brown, 755 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (criminal case fees must be based on expenses actually incurred in the particular prosecution); Arnold v. State, 306 P.2d 368 (Wyo. 1957) (fees cannot be used to defer the general costs of judicial administration). 69 State v. Johnson, 124 N.C. App. 462, 474 (1996) (quoting State v. Ballard, 868 P.2d 738, 742 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994)). 70 State v. Johnson, 124 N.C. App. at 478 (quoting State v. Claborn, 870 P.2d 169 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994)). 71 Reynolds and Hall, Courts Are Not Revenue Centers, 9. 72 North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts Budget Management and Financial Services, Statistical and Operational Report of Budget Management and Financial Services: July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016, 4–6. 73 Neff, “No Mercy for Judges Who Show Mercy.” 74 Morey, “When Traffic Court Becomes Debtors’ Prison.” 75 Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. at 672–73. 76 Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. at 671. 77 Turner v. Rogers, 131 U.S. 2507 (2011).