Overhaul of Local Courts Is Proposed

An Assembly committee heard a proposal Tuesday for radical changes in traditional Municipal and Superior court procedures--ranging from abolishing jury trials in certain misdemeanor cases to decriminalizing minor traffic violations.

The aim of the far-reaching legislation is for the state to gradually take over financing of the trial courts and make them more efficient and less costly.

The legislation by Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was submitted to an Assembly-Senate conference committee for its first public hearing as Gov. Pete Wilson and legislative leaders struggled to overcome the state budget deficit and write a new spending program.

The legislation proposed these fundamental--and probably controversial--changes in the way local courts do business in California:

* Amend the state Constitution to eliminate jury trials for misdemeanor crimes punishable by a term of six months or less in jail.

* Direct the state Judicial Council to determine whether parking and minor vehicle code violations should be “recharacterized” as non-criminal offenses and be handled administratively instead of in trial courts. Such offenses as drunk or reckless driving would remain serious crimes to be dealt with by the courts.

* Eliminate driving with a suspended license as a vehicle code offense, but impound the driver’s vehicle and require him to pay police a $100 “impounding fee” in addition to auto storage costs.

* Require speeders and other traffic law violators who attend traffic school to pay a fee equal to what they would have paid in fines.

* Give Municipal Court judges the authority to sentence criminals in felony cases if a plea is made in their courts. Conversely, permit Superior Court judges to sentence misdemeanor defendants.

* Permit Municipal Court judges to try civil cases and enter judgments up to $100,000. Allow Superior Court judges to try civil cases in which the monetary judgments sought are below the current Superior Court level of $25,000.

* Keep experienced judges on the bench longer by eliminating the financial incentive for retirement. The law now penalizes judges who stay on the bench after 70 by reducing their pensions.

* Where judges agree, “unify” the administrative staffs of the Superior and Municipal courts. In unified courts, the $90,680-a-year salary of Municipal Court judges would rise to that of Superior Court judges--$99,297.

“One way to make the court system more efficient is to get out of the system what you do not need to have there,” Isenberg said.

He said a motorist who owes unpaid parking fines and fails to appear in court could be arrested by marshals, brought into court, threatened with a suit to recover the fines or put in jail. Such cases now require more complex court action.

“For $500 or $200 in parking tickets, you have got this whole judicial system, which is geared for murderers and asbestos litigation, going after this small (parking offender),” Isenberg said. “It doesn’t make any sense. Many European nations handle vehicle stuff administratively.”

For decades, the Legislature has attempted various patchwork approaches to make the increasingly costly trial court system more efficient and more economical. Isenberg estimated that the state provides about $507 million a year to operate local courts, or about 37% of the total costs. The remainder is paid by local jurisdictions.

Under the bill, a massive shift in financing would occur if the state were to take over the full financing of courts. For starters, the state would take from counties 75% of the money they take in from fines and penalties. From cities, which receive court-generated revenues but make no financial contribution to the courts, the state would “recapture” 50% of non-parking judicial levies.

In addition, the state would increase from $7 to $10 a surcharge it receives on each fine or penalty levied by local courts.