HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 2019 Municipal Court Report AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/24/2019
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Susan Triem / Finance Staff Phone No: 541-726-2354
Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Strengthen Public Safety by Leveraging
Partnerships and Resources
ITEM TITLE: 2019 Municipal Court Report
ACTION REQUESTED:
None – Informational Only
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2019 Municipal Court Report
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Overview of current Municipal Court operations and anticipated challenges for the
coming year
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Susan Triem, Municipal Court Judge
SUBJECT: 2019 Municipal Court Report
DATE: June 12, 2019
OVERVIEW:
The goals of the Springfield Municipal Court are to preserve community safety, protect the rights of
individuals, inspire public trust and confidence, and provide excellent public service by delivering fair
and accessible justice services.
The Springfield Municipal Court adjudicates misdemeanor crimes, traffic violations, parking violations,
and civil code violations. Violations are non-criminal, and carry a fine as a penalty. Misdemeanor crimes
can carry a penalty of up to 364 days in jail, and/or a $6,250 fine. Examples of misdemeanor crimes
include driving under the influence of intoxicants, assault in the fourth degree, harassment, resisting
arrest, interfering with a peace officer, theft, disorderly conduct, and trespassing.
Court is in session every week-day. We have regularly-scheduled dockets for violation arraignments and
trials, criminal arraignments, criminal hearings, probation violation hearings, and open court where
community members can talk to a judge about any matter that is pending before the court. Criminal
trials are scheduled on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. In 2018, the court called in juries for 11 trials, held
four bench trials, and 270 violation trials.
CASE LOAD:
2018 saw a slight decrease in the total number of criminal complaints and non-criminal violations
brought into court over the past three years.
Count of Docket # 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MISDEMEANOR CLASS A 1,910 1,955 2,186 2,468 1,971
MISDEMEANOR CLASS B 423 453 452 541 472
MISDEMEANOR CLASS C 952 946 1,132 1,131 953
MISDEMEANOR CLASS UNCLASSIFIED 36 40 38 11 2
Total 3,321 3,394 3,808 4,151 3,398
PARKING 648 712
VIOLATION CLASS A 1,278 1,473 1,610 1,948 2,000
VIOLATION CLASS B 2,968 3,262 3,196 3,542 3,452
VIOLATION CLASS C 540 739 594 346 113
VIOLATION CLASS D 1,276 1,582 1,446 1,123 899
VIOLATION CLASS UNCLASSIFIED 1,489 1,618 2,080 2,150 1,598
Total 7,551 8,674 8,926 9,757 8,774
GRAND TOTAL 10,872 12,068 12,734 13,908 12,172
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
The 2018 criminal caseload was 94% of the five-year average, and the violation caseload was a little over
100% of the five-year average. By comparison, the Eugene Municipal Court reported that it adjudicated
5,260 misdemeanor cases in 2017 (the only year data was readily available).
CRIME CATEGORIES:
The most common criminal offenses are as follows:
Top 10 Criminal charges by year
2018 Count 2017 Count
CRIMINAL TRESPASS-2 413 DUII 538
DUII 360 CRIMINAL TRESPASS-2 430
THEFT 3 311 THEFT 3 414
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 267 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 308
THEFT 2 217 THEFT 2 270
DWS-MIS 141 RECKLESS DRIVING 155
HARASSMENT PHYSICAL 131 INTERFERE WITH POLICE 145
RECKLESS DRIVING 129 DWS-MIS 145
INTERFERE WITH POLICE 103 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 2 133
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 2 80 RESISTING ARREST 112
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
VIOLATION CLASS UNCLASSIFIED
VIOLATION CLASS D
VIOLATION CLASS C
VIOLATION CLASS B
VIOLATION CLASS A
PARKING
MISDEMEANOR CLASS
UNCLASSIFIED
MISDEMEANOR CLASS C
MISDEMEANOR CLASS B
MISDEMEANOR CLASS A
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
2016 Count 2015 Count
DUII 471 DUII 392
THEFT 3 458 THEFT 3 380
CRIMINAL TRESPASS-2 406 CRIMINAL TRESPASS-2 340
THEFT 2 236 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 284
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 177 THEFT 2 258
HARASSMENT 138 HARASSMENT 108
DWS-MIS 135 INTERFERE WITH POLICE 102
INTERFERE WITH POLICE 131 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 2 94
RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING 122 RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING 84
RECKLESS DRIVING 102 RECKLESS DRIVING 80
2014 Count
DUII 494
THEFT 3 405
CRIMINAL TRESPASS-2 312
THEFT 2 245
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 228
HARASSMENT 123
INTERFERE WITH POLICE 104
DWS-MIS 98
RESISTING ARREST 84
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 2 80
VIOLATION CATEGORIES:
The most common violation offenses are as follows:
2018 Count 2017 Count
DWS-VIO 1,722 DRIVING UNINSURED 1,674
DRIVING UNINSURED 1,609 DWS-VIO 1,634
VIO DESIGNATED SPEED LMT 600 VIO DESIGNATED SPEED LMT 878
OPER W/O DRIVE PRIVILEGE 456 OPER W/O DRIVE PRIVILEGE 559
FL PAY VEH REG FEE 393 FL PAY VEH REG FEE 527
VBR 350 VBR 426
DRIVE USE CELLPHONE-B 304 FL OBEY TRF CONT DEV 319
FL OBEY TRF CONT DEV 235 FL USE SAFTY BELT/SYSTEM 210
CARELESS DRIVING 231 DRIVE USE CELLPHONE 197
FL USE SAFTY BELT/SYSTEM 187 CARELESS DRIVING 187
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
2016 Count 2015 Count
DRIVING UNINSURED 1,369 DRIVING UNINSURED 1,460
DWS-VIO 1,311 DWS-VIO 1,237
VIO DESIGNATED SPEED LMT 956 VIO DESIGNATED SPEED LMT 864
FL PAY VEH REG FEE 702 FL PAY VEH REG FEE 640
OPER W/O DRIVE PRIVILEGE 545 DRIVE USE CELLPHONE 561
DRIVE USE CELLPHONE 425 OPER W/O DRIVE PRIVILEGE 555
VBR 404 FL USE SAFTY BELT/SYSTEM 533
FL USE SAFTY BELT/SYSTEM 386 FL OBEY TRF CONT DEV 360
FL OBEY TRF CONT DEV 329 CARELESS DRIVING 184
CARELESS DRIVING 211 VBR 183
2014 Count
DRIVING UNINSURED 1,343
DWS-VIO 1,137
VIO DESIGNATED SPEED LMT 676
FL PAY VEH REG FEE 623
OPER W/O DRIVE PRIVILEGE 514
DRIVE USE CELLPHONE 393
FL USE SAFTY BELT/SYSTEM 376
FL OBEY TRF CONT DEV 369
POSS LT 1 OZ MARIJUANA 309
CARELESS DRIVING 154
COURT STRUCTURE:
Administrative Staff: The Municipal Court’s administrative staff is comprised of the Court Supervisor
(Allison Sederlin), Senior Court Clerk (Erin Selvey), and six court clerks. Ms. Sederlin and Ms. Selvey have
recently been asked to serve on an advisory committee for a “Virtual Court” software platform designed
by the court’s current software provider (Tyler Technologies). The “Virtual Court” will allow us to
expand accessibility to individuals who cannot attend court. In addition, Ms. Sederlin and Ms. Selvey are
working with Tyler Technologies to expand our ability to send out automated call notifications and text
notifications for missed payments, upcoming court dates, etc. Through Ms. Sederlin’s and Ms. Selvey’s
efforts, we have the chance to test these new features and concepts at no additional cost to our court.
Judicial Staff: The Municipal Court’s judicial staff is comprised of a presiding judge (Susan Triem) and
two pro tem judges (John Kim, William Warnisher). We also have a third pro tem judge who is available
as back-up when needed (R. Scott Palmer).
Public Defense Contract: Most of the defendants who are charged with a crime in the Springfield
Municipal Court are eligible for court-appointed attorneys. The City awarded a contract for indigent
defense services to McKenzie Defense in January 2019. This was a competitive process, and McKenzie
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
Defense impressed the selection committee with their pledge to provide effective representation for
their clients, and their willingness to embrace changes proposed in the new RFP. McKenzie Defense has
demonstrated a commitment to engage with their clients in a timely manner (especially those who
remain incarcerated pre-trial), and attorneys now appear and advocate for their incarcerated clients at
the first court appearance.
City Prosecution Contract: Leahy Cox, LLP, provides prosecution services to the City. In spite of the
large number of cases that are processed by their office, the attorneys and staff provide an excellent
level of service to the City. They efficiently resolve large numbers of cases, and effectively represent the
City at trial when needed.
CHALLENGES FACING THE COURT:
Mental Health Issues:
The nonprofit Mental Health America recently ranked Oregon as the worst state in the country for
mental illness rates and lack of effective community support. This disconnect between need and
assistance has had a very real impact on our court. Too often, our jail has become the de facto mental
health facility for those with untreated or undertreated mental illness in Springfield. Without effective
intervention, these individuals cycle through the court system repeatedly. These cases are incredibly
time consuming for judges, court staff, prosecution and defense attorneys as all parties must shift into
problem-solving mode to try break the cycle of recidivism. Too often such attempts are unsuccessful as
there simply are not enough effective community programs for this difficult-to-engage population.
Unfortunately, we are seeing increasing numbers of individuals with mental illness in our court. Last
year, the court processed 19 “fitness to proceed” motions. So far this year, we have already processed
14 fitness motions, with no end in sight.
Sixth Amendment Center Report:
The nonprofit Sixth Amendment Center presented a report in January 2019 to the Oregon Legislature
that criticized Oregon’s indigent defense systems. In particular, the report attacked the flat-rate
compensation plan used by most courts as “creating an incentive for attorneys to handle as many cases
as possible and to do so as quickly as possible, rather than focusing on their ethical duty of achieving the
client’s case-related goals.” The legislature plans to form panels to review indigent defense
compensation systems at the state and municipal level, with recommendations to follow.
Court security:
Court security continues to be a concern. We see angry, volatile people on a regular basis.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5