2011-09-14 Handouts @ Mtg. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Using`objective' based criteria is consistent with the previous opinions of the State Auditor. Where State traffic or criminal law preempts municipal regulation a City may not simply collect fine revenue which would otherwise go to the State. However, a City may impose a fee for a service in conjunction with the Constitutional authority conferred on a prosecutor to exercise discretion to dismiss a case. An `objective' based municipal ticket program is consistent with other statutory based administrative models allowing for the dismissal of a charge or citation. For example, a defendant cannot be convicted of a charge for failure to produce proof of insurance if proof of insurance is tendered to the court administrator before the offender's arraignment. (See, M.S. 169.791, or 169. 797.) If that offense was the only violation charged on the defendant's ticket, the ticket is dismissed and the surcharge is not imposed. In contrast to the term "diversion program" found in M.S. 357.021, Minn.R.Crim.Pro 27.05 — Pretrial Diversion, clearly sets out a procedure for court approved pretrial diversion. Here too, this Rule is based on the concept that a case subject to pretrial diversion would be continued for a period of time. (Rule 27.05, subd. 1(1) states, "suspended for a specified time and then dismissed. ") The only limitation here is that in this form of diversion the agreement with the prosecutor cannot include a condition which cannot be imposed as a condition of probation. An `objective' based ticket program should follow the requirements of this Rule. Given that requirement, implementing a municipal ticket payment program prior to the defendant's arraignment in court gives the prosecutor even more latitude to conduct a program for ticket payments. The notes to the Rule state, "Rule 27.05 (Pretrial Diversion) does not preclude the prosecutor and defendant from agreeing to diversion of a case without court approval if charges are not pending before the court." The existing standing agreement with the Anoka County Bench allows municipalities to continue arraignments for the purpose of allowing defendants to complete a municipal ticket payment program. Given the statutory prohibition against `continuances' it would be wise for the prosecutor not to continue cases for this purpose. This would not bar a defendant from continuing an arraignment if they felt it was appropriate. Finally, Rule 27.05 & M.S. 611A.031), require a prosecuting attorney to "make every reasonable effort to notify and seek input from the victim" before employing pretrial diversion for certain offenses. This requirement applies to a municipal ticket payment program.