3 Anaheim Officials Reconsider Plan to Bill Crime Suspects

Three Anaheim City Council members, concerned that innocent people could be penalized, Thursday backed off from their support of a proposal to make those accused of crimes pay for police investigations--even if they are acquitted.

Council members William D. Ehrle, Miriam Kaywood and Irv Pickler said they will seek clarification of the issue from the city attorney before voting again on the measure, which is up for final adoption Tuesday. They and two other council members voted in favor of the proposed ordinance earlier this week.

The ordinance, which some legal authorities have criticized as unconstitutional, would charge the costs of criminal investigations, including administrative costs and wages, to those accused of crimes even if they are subsequently acquitted or if the charges are dismissed.

If the person refuses to pay, the city would be able file a civil lawsuit to collect. The city would have to prove that the person committed an unlawful act, but the standard of proof in a civil suit is much lower than in a criminal proceeding.

Anaheim City Atty. Jack L. White has said that, because a civil suit is not punitive in nature, the city has a right to sue to recover its expenses even if a person is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding.

But many legal experts dispute that contention, and Kaywood, Ehrle and Pickler said they will re-evaluate that provision of the ordinance.

“I would draw the line at going after innocent people,” Ehrle said. “I voted in favor of the ordinance mainly to get it through the first step. I think we still need more clarification on some of the issues.”

Added Kaywood: “I would want to look at it closely before I decide to see how it could be changed so that an innocent person isn’t slapped with a bill they didn’t create.”

Some candidates for council seats in the November election have charged that the ordinance is being used for political purposes.

“It’s a political ploy in an election year,” said candidate W.R. Baker, 37.

Another candidate, Paul Bostwick, said the proposed ordinance “flies in the face of constitutionality.”

“I agree to a certain extent that some council members might be trying to make an issue out of this,” he said.

All three council members disputed the charges. Pickler and Councilman Fred Hunter are running for mayor in the November election. Ehrle is up for reelection. Kaywood is not up for reelection until 1990. Hunter and Mayor Ben Bay, who is not seeking reelection, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

“It is something that was proposed by the city (attorney’s) staff and is innovative, not political,” Ehrle said. “It is a vehicle to recoup some of the exorbitant costs the city must spend for investigations. I hope it sets a precedent for other cities.”

However, White said no estimates have been made of how much money the city is likely to recover if the ordinance passes.

Some legal authorities have questioned the city’s contention that it would be able to recover large sums of money, noting that courts have a hard time recovering fines assessed for criminal convictions.

Bill Brennan, administrator of the north county Municipal Court, said county municipal courts recovered more than $66 million in fines during the 1987-88 fiscal year. The county does not keep statistics on recovery rates, but Brennan said a lot of money goes unrecovered each year, and the county has had to set up payment schedules for many people convicted of crimes who cannot afford to pay the costs all at once.

Both White and Anaheim Police Chief Joseph T. Molloy have said that, even though technically the ordinance applies to everyone apprehended, it would be used selectively.

City officials say they hope that, besides bringing in more revenue, the ordinance would act as a deterrent to crime.

“It’s a disincentive,” White said. “If someone who has committed a crime realized that they will also incur civil damages, they may think it might be in their best interests to turn themselves in.”

But one legal expert called that idea “ill-conceived.”

“First of all, it does not deter criminals when you punish innocent people, or in this case fine them,” said Martin Levine, a USC law professor. “Secondly, it would only make sense to go after people who have the funds. Thirdly, you would set the amount of the penalty on the basis of the profitability of the crime--is the penalty more than the crime is worth--and that has no connection to what it costs to investigate a crime.”