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

Home Browse Search

Conclusion If the City Councils were to adopt a policy that the State Surcharge does not apply to the proposed municipal ticket payment program, the program should only be conducted in a manner consistent with the following conditions. These conditions should be set forth in a written policy or procedure statement. 1) The program may not impose a fee which exceeds the maximum statutory fine. 2) The program may not impose any condition which could not otherwise be imposed as a condition of court- ordered probation. 3) Completion of the program should be based on the achievement of an objective (i.e. education or other goal). 4) The program must conclude prior to the defendant's arraignment. 5) The prosecutor may not request the court to continue a defendant's arraignment for the purpose of allowing them to complete the requirements of a ticket payment program. However, a defendant may request continuation of their arraignment pursuant to District Court policy. 6) The prosecutor may not `continue' a charge as a condition of the program. 7) Where appropriate, the prosecutor should make every reasonable effort to notify and seek input from a victim before employing the ticket payment program for certain offenses. 8) To avoid payment of the Surcharge, the program cannot include charges for worthless checks, or alternatively, if such charges are part of the program the Surcharge should be paid to the State for each of those cases. Municipal `livability crimes' (i.e. nuisance properties) or municipal civil regulation (i.e. license regulation) may be included in the proposed municipal ticket payment program. In order to be consistent and avoid confusion, I recommend that if these violations are included in the Program that they are subject to the same guidelines as criminal or traffic offenses.