Judicial panel looks for ways to keep minor offenders out of jail

Aaron Clemens

Friday, July 7, 2000 | 10:51 a.m.

Last month 362 of the 1,793 people screened at the Clark County Detention Center were there because of traffic tickets.

"It's a dumb reason to go to jail," said Jerry Phillips, director of intake at the county jail. Traffic offenders can wind up there for failing to appear before a judge, not doing court-ordered community service and failing to pay a fine.

Sharing a holding cell, its sole toilet and the wooden benches with 10 or more people is not the best way to spend a weekend, Phillips added.

Not all of the 10,000 people picked up on traffic-related bench warrants last year end up at the county jail. Some may go to the Las Vegas Municipal Jail. Those who can't post bail wait 48 to 96 hours before they can see a judge to plead their case, he said. First-timers are usually released on their own recognizance.

Minor traffic violators may no longer risk jail time under a proposal of a judicial commission headed by Nevada Supreme Court Justice Bob Rose. The plan, to be recommended to the 2001 Legislature, also will make it quicker and easier for the state to prove its case.

The judicial panel will recommend that traffic offenses resulting in four demerits or less, such as speeding 16 to 20 mph over the limit or running a stop sign, be decriminalized from misdemeanor criminal citations to civil offenses.

The panel reasoned that changing this policy would free up the court calenders and jails for more serious offenses.

"Some traffic trials last longer than a DUI trial," said Municipal Judge Michelle Fitzpatrick, a member of the subcommittee that drafted the proposal. "I don't know if that's the best use of our resources."

Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell estimated a trial for a minor traffic offense costs a substantial amount of money when witness fees, the salary of the court officials and police officers are counted. Fitzpatrick agreed that it's expensive to run a courtroom.

With civil trials the outcome is faster, because not as many court appearances are required, and much cheaper. In fact, offenders could respond by mail for citations such as a lack of registration or proof of insurance, which now require in-person court appearances.

In addition, local courts can save money by using a lower-paid hearing officer for minor traffic tickets, freeing judges for more important matters, Fitzpatrick said. Hearing officers help out judges in Family Court and District Court.

More importantly, she said, the proposal puts offenses into perspective.

"Right now someone running a stop sign receives the same rights and processes as someone accused of capital murder," Fitzpatrick said.

Protecting rights

Chad Dornsife, spokesman for the Nevada chapter of the National Motorists Association, a drivers' rights lobbying group, does not see any problem moving traffic cases from criminal to civil courts, but he doesn't like the idea of losing constitutional due process rights. He pointed out that since California went to a civil model, citizens get only one appeal before the case is settled and lose other rights.

A criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict. With a civil trial the state needs a "preponderance of evidence," or need be only 51 percent convincing.

On the other hand, Dornsife said, the threat of jail for a minor traffic offense is unfair. A district attorney once threatened him with six months in jail unless he changed his plea to guilty, he said.

In another battle his group has fought in Nevada courts, it took nine years to force the state to provide engineering assessments to justify posted speed limits, as required by federal law.

"We've got a problem in Nevada," he said. "The courts have never had to answer to anyone."

Quicker and easier

For some people, the key is a faster and easier process for traffic citations.

Shirley Funchess waited at Justice Court with her mother-in-law, who had received a ticket because someone else used her name when stopped by a police officer, she said.

"The car wasn't even registered to her," said Funchess, who had already spent several hours trying to get information. "For senior citizens, there has got to be a better way."

Fitzpatrick said she often finds people using others' identification. For people such as Funchess' mother-in-law, the matter could be cleared up with one court appearance instead of two, the judge said.

The one potential drawback -- that without the threat of jail, offenders won't bother paying -- is not a problem Fitzpatrick said.

The courts can garnishee wages, seize bank accounts, file a report with a credit agency and revoke a license or registration.

In fact, all of those options are quicker in a civil court than criminal, Fitzpatrick said, because in criminal court, a conviction is needed before collection can begin. All that is needed in civil court is a default judgment when an offender fails to appear.

Jail still possible

And that does not eliminate possible jail time, Fitzpatrick noted. "Any judge will still have the right to hold someone in civil contempt and jail them for 25 days on a failure to appear."

John Williams, city of Las Vegas fines enforcement supervisor, doesn't think removing the threat of a misdemeanor conviction and jail time would affect collections, which at 90 percent he considers as high as they can be. Most defaulters have moved out of state, and collection agencies are pretty successful with those, he said.

"A lot of people who don't take care of their fines have a hard time setting priorities," he said. "I just explain and get them to see where this is heading down the line."

Even playing field

One other benefit of the change is to even out punishment between jurisdictions.

In unincorporated Clark County those accused of minor traffic offenses who seek a trial instead discover a room of district attorneys offering pleas ranging from a $50 parking violation with no points on their licence to traffic school.

"That's not fair," Fitzpatrick said, while declining to comment on the operation of other courts. She said that changing to a uniform civil remedy would do away with any possible criticism that some courts are harsher than others.