1 Year Later Quashed Warrants Unresolved

Earlier in the year as criminal justice advocates cheered the quashing of thousands of outstanding warrants in the Champaign County Courthouse for various local ordinance violations, local government officials were left with questions. This left the enforcement mechanism for local government unclear while addressing a serious over-jailing problem at the County level. The News-Gazette had an overview of those warrants here, and explained the double-sided sword quashing the warrants was having back in January here:

Judge 'quashed' thousands of warrants
...
In a 15-word order issued Jan. 5, Judge Tom Difanis "quashed," or set aside, 2,547 outstanding warrants for people who have unresolved city or village ordinance violations, some issued as long ago as 2001.

Difanis said he intended the move to lighten the load of the staff at the Champaign County Jail, who have to book those people once they are arrested.

His action, however, has left city legal staffers wondering what the alternatives are.

Almost a year later the City of Champaign is still working out how to deal with the ramifications of that decision. From the News-Gazette earlier this week:

Costs take focus in Champaign council's discussion on ordinance violations
...
Council members considered multiple options on how to deal with 1,800 failure-to-appear warrants that were among 2,547 that Champaign County Presiding Judge Tom Difanis quashed in a single order in January, to the frustration of municipal legal departments across the county. The conclusion of many on the council was that the issue needed more time and attention.

Members also gave some feedback to city staff on a proposal to have city return to using administrative adjudication for the violations, which would eliminate the need to go through the county courts.

Council member Angie Brix said her support for administrative adjudication will come down to cost. She questioned city legal staff about possible costs for all the software, bookkeeping and staff the new system would require, as well as the cost to hire a hearing officer. Staff members said they wanted some direction before moving forward on exploring those costs.

The board appeared to take into consideration the very real impacts their decisions could have on vulnerable members of the community as well as taxpayers, however:

And though it may have lead to more work and stress for legal staffs in municipalities across the county, council member Clarissa Fourman said the judge's order ultimately did more good than harm.

"I liked what Judge Difanis did because it helped a lot of people," Fourman said. "There's a reason people don't go to court. They may not have child care, or can't get off their below-$10-an-hour job, or you don't know what trauma somebody has had as a child — maybe they spent all their young life in court and don't want to be in that environment. We are also punishing people for being poor. There has to be a way to enforce this with humanity."

Some council members balked at the notion of bringing in collection agencies like Chicago-based Harris and Harris to fix the problem by using liens on property or filing small-claims suits against people who have failed to appear in court or set up a payment plan for any fines levied.

"I will never support us going any kind of business whatsoever with Harris and Harris," said council member Tom Bruno. "They are so dirty that I will never vote to have the city get in bed with a collection agency like Harris and Harris to dun people in our community."

More at the full article here.