SPEEDERS WHO show up in municipal court in Lancaster leave with a
5-by-8 card that’s emblazoned with the phone numbers and addresses
of state lawmakers, spelling out who’s profiting from fines that end
up being more than twice what they had expected.
A $15 parking ticket now costs $55, the card explains, because of
assessments and surcharges the Legislature has tacked on; the city
keeps just $14.46 of the total. Those same add-ons mean a $50
speeding ticket costs $128, with $49.64 going to the city.
“If you feel that the fine amounts for criminal and traffic
offenses have risen sharply, you are correct,” the card reads. “We
would like to explain that local law enforcement officers and court
personnel have no control over these rapidly escalating amounts.
These amounts are driven by actions of the State Legislature and
cannot be changed at the local level.”
The cards are the brainchild of Lancaster city administrator
Steve Willis, who wrote lawmakers last month to warn them to expect
complaints. “I am tired of our judges being on the receiving end of
tirades regarding court fines when they have no control over
excessive state assessments and surcharges,” he wrote.
The costs, and the policy behind them, might seem reasonable to
people who complain that the state should force lawbreakers to pay
for the police who catch them breaking the law. But it marks a
dramatic, if largely unnoticed, change in state policy over the last
few years. And whether you think it’s a good idea or not, it’s
causing some very real problems that, in retrospect, should have
been anticipated.
Around the same time Mr. Willis put together the information
cards, the state announced that it would audit courts in Richland
and Lexington counties and five other jurisdictions to determine why
the court funds they send to the state to help pay for law
enforcement had dropped so precipitously. Statewide, collections
from court assessments and surcharges were down about 4 percent last
year, when most people expected them to increase; the drop-off has
been at least two-thirds in the jurisdictions being audited.
To Mr. Willis and others, one reason is obvious: Police are no
longer as willing to write tickets, and judges are much more likely
to reduce the charges — which lowers fines and assessments — because
they believe that “we are going so far overboard on punishing the
guilty with excessive fines that justice is no longer being served
in our courts.”
Traffic tickets and other misdemeanor fines have long cost more
than face value once court costs were added. But there has been a
dramatic uptick in the past decade, as legislators have come to see
court add-ons as a great way to generate more money to pay for law
enforcement without raising taxes.
In 1995, the state imposed an assessment equal to 52 percent of
fines levied in municipal court, 88 percent of fines in magistrate
court and 62 percent of fines in general sessions court. Today, the
assessment more than doubles the fine — adding 107.5 percent — in
all courts.
And on top of that, a $25 “surcharge” was added to all court
“fines, forfeitures, escheatments, or other monetary penalties” by a
2003 law designed for the sole purpose of generating $24 million to
plug holes in law enforcement budgets that had been depleted by
across-the-board budget cuts. Even higher surcharges have been
tacked on to DUIs and misdemeanor and felony drug charges.
Lancaster police and judges aren’t the only ones rebelling
against the higher court costs. Charleston County Magistrate David
Coker recently told The Post and Courier that judges have no choice
but to give people a break now that tickets cost so much more than
face value. “We have to use some discretion and compassion because
the fees are so much higher,” he said.
But state law prohibits judges from reducing the surcharge, and
the assessments are tied to the fine, so the only way to exercise
discretion is by reducing the charges or opting for punishments
other than fines.
Even before the surcharges were tacked on, a 1999 report by the
state auditor warned that “the amount of fines and assessments have
increased to a point where offenders do not have the ability to
pay.” As a result, the report said, “judges are giving jail time
instead of fines.”
It’s not clear how many judges are opting for jail time instead
of expensive fines and how many are finding people guilty of lesser
crimes. Either way, justice is being ill-served: People are being
jailed for offenses that don’t merit jail time, or else their
records don’t reflect the severity of their offenses.
And despite distorting the criminal justice system, the state
isn’t even making the windfall that the escalating court fees were
designed to create.
Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at
(803)
771-8571.
