1

Case Flow Management in Limited Jurisdiction Courts

Managing a Photo Enforcement Program via

Partnership

Janet G. Cornell, Court AdministratorDaniel W. Edwards, Deputy Court Administrator

Scottsdale, AZ, City CourtPresented to the National Association for Court Management July 15, 2008

2

Photo Enforcement (PE)

Question:

What comes to mind when you hear that phrase?

3

4

Why Today’s Session

Recent and increased interest in photo enforcement implementation

Photo enforcement as a specialized docket

Case study in partnering for service

5

Today We’ll Cover

Elements of photo enforcement Partnership and collaboration items Program oversight issues Role of the court Case flow management Program performance Challenges and lessons learned Ethical issues

6

What’s Your Interest?

Judges Court staff Policy setters Court finance managers Vendor Other

7

Question for Attendees:

Which of your courts has a photo enforcement program in place?

Which of you are currently evaluating or planning for photo enforcement?

8

Program Policy Areas

WorkloadAssessment

Laws, Rules,Statutes

BusinessRules &Policies

PublicInformation

OperationalStatistics

Budget

Program PolicyAreas

9

AZ Photo Enforcement Programs

Town of Paradise Valley, AZ – started in 1987

20 plus courts live with photo enforcement Department of Public Safety Photo Enforcement City/County Photo Enforcement

Methods vary Sensors (piezoelectric strips) or radar Intersection-mid block-vans

9

1010

The Scottsdale Experience Scottsdale program operations started 1996-1997 Current installations – streets, mid block, freeway:

7 fixed intersections – speed, red light 4 fixed installations, mid block – speed 6 fixed sites on freeway - speed 4 mobile vans – speed

City operated program & State overseen program Over 300,000 photo cites since 2006 Vendor change in July 2007 On drawing board – coming

Multiple charges on single citation form Left hand turn on red violations

Sparked momentum for statewide enforcement

11

Elements of a PE Program

1. Law enforcement driven2. Vendor involvement 3. Technology and automation4. Program visibility5. Political sensitivity of topic 6. Citizen acceptance

12

Photo Enforcement ‘Partners’Court

Gov’t Policy Leaders

Budget Dept

Public Information

Transportation

ProsecutorProcess Service Vendor

Photo Vendor

Driving School

Collection Agency

Legal Dept.

Law Enforcement

13

Photo Enforcement Program – What are the Goals?

Test Technology?

Transportation Initiative?

Law Enforcement Initiative?

Change Behavior?

Revenue Neutral?

Raise $$?

Program Goals?

1414

Caseflow Management Typical Case Flow Topics

Early intervention Deadlines for events Court supervision of cases Use of monitoring and information systems

Additional Issues Law enforcement partner Local prosecutor – involved or not? Services: process service, driving school,

collections

15

Flow Chart of NOV Process

16

Flow Chart of Citation Process

17

Timeline

Day 60

Day 0Court Days Day 34Day 33Day 30

Day 10>>>> Day 91 Day 120 Day 121Day 0 Day 85 Day 90

Initia l

ARR

date

=

create

date

plus 30

days

Filing

Date Event

/DOV

Photo Enforcement Timeline/BenchmarksVendor

has 10

days to

rev iew/

apprv /

create

Vendor

mails/

issues

cite

ARS 28-1592 60 days to commence action

Rule 4 Defendant must respond by this date or FTA

Rule 4 Defendant must answer by this date

Court

sends

serv ice

eligible

file to

ATS

(ARR +

3 days)

Approx

date

vendor

sends

EZM

process

serv ice

package

Last day

to serve

per

business

rules ( ARR

date

minus 5

days)

New

ARR

date &

return

due to

court

ARS 28-1592Service Period

Court's Notice to

State of dismssals

Cases

dismissed

per court

order

08-05

ARS 28-159310 days to file with court

Last

day

return

can be

filed

court

Rule 4 Court can dismiss

18

Where Money Goes

$70.76

$20.00

$74.24

$10.00

Court Enhancement Fund $10.00

State of Arizona Mandated Surcharge$70.76

City General Fund Vendor Contract &Direct Costs : Court, Police and Prosecutor$74.24

Maricopa CountyMandated Surchage$20.00

Allocation of Typical PhotoEnforcement Fine:

40.43% $70.76 State's Portion

11.43% $20.00 County's Portion

42.42% $74.24 City's Portion

5.71% $10.00 Crt. Enhancemnt

100.00% $175.00 Total

1919

Unique to PE Program

Law enforcement program Court based activities Electronic filing program Data exchanges critical Data integration imperative Notice of violation process Obtaining jurisdiction on case

20

Court Processing Differences Officer written complaints

Personal jurisdiction Violator identified Default judgment if no answer Collection actions follow

Photo enforcement complaints No service upon issuance Defendant not always driver Vendor involvement – police ‘authorization’ No default or collections without service Dismissals if no voluntary compliance or service

21

Program Oversight Issues

Legislative issues Statutes, rules and policies Political nature Media interests Records requests

22

Legislative Issues

Legislators/citizens get involved

Other partners impacted

Constitutionality

Owner vs. Driver

23

Rules, Statutes, Administrative Orders

ARS 28-645 – Red light violations ARS 28-654 – Signage ARS 28-3392 – Defensive driving ARS 28-1592 – Commencement of

action and service ARS 28-1593 – Days to file in court

with service of complaint

24

Rules, Statutes, Administrative Orders

Rule 4 – Rules of Civil Procedure – time for response

Rule 4 – Waiver of service

Case dismissal times – After 90 days, may dismiss

Administrative Orders

25

Political Nature

Politically charged program

Surveys

Revisited annually by legislature

26

Media Interests/Records Requests

Media Heightened interest Statistics/Revenue “Super speeders” “Frequent fliers”

Records requests Individual cases Bulk records

2727

Role of the Court?

Boundaries may be fluid Court expertise and interest Assertiveness of court to be at table Caseflow management principles Educating partners on judicial

processes

2828

The ‘Balancing Act’

Court - executive - legislative Court as neutral, yet engaged for

operational data – case, financial Law enforcement - court Vendor - government Facts and anecdotal information Program information ‘goal’ Technology differences – court,

vendor, law enforcement, prosecutor

29

Court as Center of Data

CollectionAgency

Court IVR System

Fine Payments

Police/LawEnforcement

Prosecutor

Supreme Court DataWarehouse

Public &MediaAccess

Process ServerVendor

Driving School

PE Vendor

Court

30

Court Resources Affected

Customer service staff In person On phone Handling paperwork/documents

Judicial officers Hearing times Contested hearings

Court security Court interpreters Daily processing tasks Policy issue time Program management – internal/administrative,

procurement and contract issues Global policy issues – city/government officials

31

Statistics Measured by Our Court

Customers on site Front counter volume Phone calls IVR system Correspondence Initial hearings Contested hearings

Security screening Queuing system Docket codes Web/IVR use Revenue Driving School Process Service

32

Court Statistics

33

Court Statistics

34

Court StatisticsPhoto Enforcement - Surface Streets FY 2007/08

Actual thru Apr-08 + Forecast

thru Jun-08 Actual Apr-08

Actual YTD : Apr-08

Speed & Red Light Citations - Filed 36,739 3,429 30,749

Speed & Red Light Citations - Successful dispositions 22,789 2,160 18,959

RevenueGeneral Fund revenue 1,850,040$ 167,083$ 1,479,436$

Court Enhancement revenue 234,092 21,043 189,719 Judicial Collection Enhancement revenue 12,989 1,056 10,786

Total City Revenue 2,097,120$ 189,182$ 1,528,356$ Note: Bonds and State Surcharges are not included as City Revenue

Estimated Direct ExpensePD Vendor Contract fees 939,285$ 83,011$ 768,030$ PD Process Service fees 109,448 8,646 81,559 PD Public Awareness/Advertising 22,668 - 12,668 PD Staff, related equipment, other 300,815 19,216 250,839 Prosecutor Contract Staff, related equipment, other - - - Court Contract Staff, related equipment, other - - -

Total Direct Expense 1,372,216$ 110,872$ 1,113,096$

General Fund Revenue less Direct Expense 477,824$ 56,211$ 366,341$

Mandated Surcharges (paid to the State) 123,980$ 1,015,932$

3535

Lessons Learned Early and continuous court involvement Plan ahead - court involvement at conceptual

stage Court relationships – internal and external Program statistics critical Create metrics in advance - court at center

of data Court also financial focal point due to data Program oversight external to court Impacts of vendor contract structure

3636

More Lessons Learned Program is technology driven Rules, processes and forms manually based

with an automation driven program Project management practices critical Establish single court spokesperson – then

coordinate with city, law enforcement spokesperson

Be aware of, alert to program assumptions Level of program interest – political issue Citizen perceptions of the court, staff

customer service, staffing levels, work volumes, policy issues

37

Challenges

Automation a blessing and a curse Push/pull of court – law enforcement Court based enforcement – defaulting a

case, issuing warrants, collections agency, tax intercepts

Coordination with vendor, and partners for data availability and definition

Level of court involvement in vendor selection, contract oversight

38

Our Response

Mobilize Get/remain involved – ‘at the table’ Watch and monitor Create triage mechanisms Analyze customer entry points for

resources needed (IVR, web, on site) Determine statistics to publish Automation = FTE(s)

39

12 Steps You Can Take to Prepare for Photo Enforcement1. Partner the presiding judge and court administrator

on program philosophy.2. Get the court involved in planning and preparation.3. Run workload scenarios.4. Establish performance and counting methods for

workload.5. Prepare cost analysis process and measures.6. Prepare technology.7. Review rules, statutes and legal requirements.8. Map out the process and flow and timeline.9. Consider political climate with local leaders,

legislature, media/press.10. Create written procedures, business rules, and

policies or procedures.11. Anticipate requests for information data and

statistics. 12. Establish a single point of contact for your court to

speak about the program.

4040

Today’s Successes

Technology based operation Standardized citation content Collaboration: court and partners Use of FAQs Creation of specialized calendar Assistance from the AOC Sharing experiences with other

courts

4141

Ethical Issues and Scenarios1. Should your judges be trained by the photo

enforcement vendor on how the equipment operates?2. Can court staff attend a vendor demonstration?3. Should court employees attend a vendor sponsored

‘users’ conference?4. Can the court limit the data that is released about the

court’s photo enforcement cases?5. Legal information versus legal advice, where does

court staff draw the line in explaining the process (what is process service? Who made the rule to require a hearing on site?)

6. Should a judge speak to a civics group regarding a photo enforcement initiative?

42

Photo Enforcement – Specialty Court or Problem Solving Court?

Specialty Court Cases sent to

special docket/calendar

Locally based program

Case type specific

Problem Solving Court Behavior change

desired Speed reduction

desire Public safety goal Behavior related

driving school

43

Q - A

Questions? Comments?

44

Resources

Daniel Edwards – Phone: 480-312-3092 Email: dwedwards@scottsdaleaz.gov

Janet Cornell – Phone: 480-312-2775 Email: jcornell@scottsdaleaz.gov

www.ncsconline.org - for article copy http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/CourTopics/

pubs.asp?topic=Traffi