Blogs

The Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines, and Fees issued its long-awaited report offering an overview, guiding principles and recommendations on New Jersey’s municipal court operations last week. The committee was appointed by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in 2017, and was made up of superior court judges, presiding municipal court judges, municipal court judges, court executives from both the Administrative Office of the Courts and vicinages, certified municipal court administrators, members of the executive branch, members of the New Jersey State Bar Association and New Jersey League of Municipalities and municipal court practitioners. Charged with “conducting a holistic review of Municipal court practice, with an eye towards reform,” the committee authored a report with eight guiding principles and 49 recommendations, with a goal of creating an independent Judiciary.

“These proposals are very good news for the people of New Jersey, as well as the profession,” said NJSBA President John E. Keefe Jr., who lauded the report’s focus on a more uniform process. “Recommendations to have a more transparent and less financially driven municipal court system will make a substantial difference in improving the independence of the state’s courts.”

The NJSBA has focused on judicial independence issues since 2013. Last year, it issued a report of the Subcommittee on Judicial Independence in the Municipal Courts following an extensive study of the issue that included four public hearings. The report, referenced in the Supreme Court’s report, outlined recommendations to protect the future of continued judicial independence that included qualifications, term recommendations, appointments, and training of municipal judges; a study of the regionalization versus localization of municipal courts; and other related issues relative to municipal courts. The Supreme Court report referenced this report in its consideration of the overall recommendations.

“[The Supreme Court report] revealed a number of significant concerns where aggressive reform is needed,” wrote Senator Declan O’Scanlon (R-LD13), who offered his own focus on reforms. “Many of those issues identified by the Committee undermine both the administration of justice and the independence of the Municipal Courts.”

Some reforms considered by O’Scanlon include enhanced screening and training for municipal court judges, extending terms and tenure, an overhaul for the distribution of fine revenue to remove the motivation of municipalities to profit from fines, court consolidation, and updated technology.

The Supreme Court report emphasized key concepts in its recommendations, including:

• Adequacy of notice provided to defendants before a driver’s license suspension;
• The sufficiency of procedural safeguards for defendants unable to pay a fine;
• Whether an acquitted defendant can be assessed court costs;
• The use of excessive contempt sanctions;
• Whether sufficient technology is available to municipal courts and their users; and
• The independence of the state’s municipal courts.

In evaluating these issues, the committee’s investigation revealed a number of significant concerns that mandate aggressive reform, in the committee’s opinion, including the excessive imposition of financial obligations on defendants with limited resources upon which the impact is significant; the excessive use of bench warrants and license suspensions as collection mechanisms; and the excessive use of discretionary contempt assessments.

Ultimately, the recommendations are aimed at achieving fair sentencing and the use of sentencing alternatives; providing procedural safeguards for defendants unable to pay a fine; providing voluntary compliance with court-ordered appearances and legal financial obligations; ensuring independence of the municipal courts; and improving access to the municipal courts through technology. A final recommendation is the creation of a working group comprised of all three branches of government.

Written comments on the report are due by Sept. 17 and should be sent to the following address:

 

Comments may also be submitted by electronic mail to [email protected]. A hearing will be held later this year on the report. The NJSBA is reviewing the report and is expected to submit comments to the Court.

This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.