Planning Permitting Division Conditional Use Application: Fill & Download for Free

Before I answer this, do you think it would be beautiful or ugly with all the drones flying around over you all day?Let me first give you a rundown of all the main aspects of the regulation and in the second half of this answer, I’ll give you a more detailed understanding...The Summary VersionThe latest news is that The Ministry of Civil Aviation, India (MoCA) has recently legalised these flying commercial vehicles and also announced the policy called Drone Regulations 1.0.The policy condemns the use of drones for the delivery of goods which was actually the primary commercial usage of drones for which the major e-commerce giants across India were coming together.However, MoCA has further updated that it might allow e-commerce companies to use drones for food delivery. They tweeted quoting Jayant Sinha (the Minister of State for Civil Aviation)Also, there is a lot to be done to bring drones into activation and usage. The Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), under MoCA, is in a process to set up a digital sky platform that will regulate drone flight in Indian territory, and will also recognise unregistered drones flying in the sky. Jayant Sinha believes that the Indian’s drone ecosystem will take off with an India-specific solution, and low-cost manufacturers in the country.As per the Drone Regulation 1.0, people can register through a mobile-based app and operate drones within the permitted zones. The Red-zones are the restricted zones, the yellow zones require permission and the Green zones are the ones where no permission is required.It is also viable to note that Jayant Sinha is currently leading the task force on drones to file a draft Drone Regulations 2.0. And it shall allow e-commerce players to use drones for the delivery of goods.P.S. - Honourable Jayant Sinha would also be attending The Ecosystem Summit as the keynote speaker and for the launch of the most comprehensive report on the Indian startup ecosystem. More details hereThe Detailed VersionThe honourable Union Minister of Civil Aviation, Suresh Prabhu (Indian Politician) has quoted…“These regulations will enable the safe, commercial usage of drones starting December 1, 2018. Drone Regulations 1.0 are intended to enable visual line-of-sight, daytime-only, and a maximum of 400 ft altitude operations,”Further, instead of simply digitising a paper-based process for registering and operating drones, the Ministry of Civil Aviation has formulated a digital process.The Digital Sky Platform is the first-of-its-kind national unmanned traffic management (UTM) platform that implements “no permission, no takeoff” (NPNT) in India. Users will be required to do a one-time registration of their drones, pilots, and owners.The aviation ministry has segregated airspace into three zones: the Red Zone (flying not permitted), the Yellow Zone (controlled airspace), and the Green Zone (automatic permission).Here are some key guidelines for commercial operations of drones in India:Drones have been categorised into five categories based on weight — less than 250 gm to more than 150 kg — and their useBarring the nano category of drones, which is the smallest, other categories of drones — micro, small, medium and large — need to be registeredNano drones used by children for recreation don’t need to be registeredUsers of small, medium and large drones will have to register as pilotsThe age eligibility for piloting a drone is 18 yearsThe drone operator must be a Class X pass out with the knowledge of EnglishThe Minister of State for Civil Aviation, Jayant Sinha added his point by tweeting...Going forward, the Drone Task Force, under the chairmanship of the minister of state Jayant Sinha, will provide draft recommendations for Drone Regulations 2.0. These regulations will examine, inter alia, the following issues:Certification of safe and controlled operation of drone hardware and softwareAirspace management through automated operations linked into overall airspace management frameworkBeyond visual-line-of-sight operationsContribution to establishing global standardsSuggestions for modifications of existing CARs and/or new CARsWhile the drone regulations have certainly added clarity to the operational requirements of drones in the country, they have also raised a few concerns.For instance, e-commerce companies such as Amazon, who’re looking to start using drones for deliveries, may need to delay their plans for a while. Amazon is currently testing delivery of packages up to five pounds (2.25 kg) in 30 minutes or less using small drones.It was in October 2017 when Amazon filed a patent application in India for exclusive rights on multi-scale fiducials. Fiducials are black and white marks on any object for self-operating aerial vehicles to identify them from different distances. The proposed drones can also be used to identify other such objects, along with aircraft, operating in the Indian skies.However, the filing of a patent application does not imply that Amazon will get an approval for deploying drones for commercial use in India.Drones can be deployed for commercial purposes but only within the line of sight of a remote pilot, which is quite a stringent condition.Also, the requirement to obtain remote pilot licenses by drone operators may become tough and further delay the process of starting drone deliveries for companies.In any case, the drone regulations will provide a direction to state governments and industries to start acting on their drone plans. For instance the Rajasthan government, which is installing an advanced surveillance mechanism including drones and thermal cameras to curb the menace of poaching and other anti-wildlife activities.Also, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Roorkee is now developing drones for the Indian Railways that can monitor rail tracks. As it was reported in January 2018, the West Central Railways has already run some drone cameras on a pilot basis and has now decided to deploy them across all divisions.

Which International Law prohibits a sovereign nation to exercise rights of governance over its own dominion? J & K acceded to India on Oct 26, 1947 through an Instrument of Accession.“The accession was final and irrevocable. There was no question of a conditional acceptance by the Governor General for the simple reason that the legal framework defined for the future of the princely states under the Indian Independence Act did not have any provision for a conditional accession.”[1]The special provisions of temporary nature were allowed by the Constituent Assembly in view of the on going fighting with Pakistani intruders and undue and unsolicited haste of our Late prime Minister Nehru to refer the matter to UN when nobody asked him to do so (except his confidante Mountbatten). J & K is integral part of India since 1954 as approved by Constituent Assembly of J & K despite Machiavelllian machinations of Nehru-Abdullah to secure special status for J & K as a personal ambition through Delhi Agreement of 1952.[2][3]It is a fallacy to suggest that the United Nations was charged with the responsibility of deciding on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. India took the matter of Pakistan’s aggression against Jammu and Kashmir to the United Nations, after the State had become a part of India in terms of a perfectly legally executed accession in accordance with the terms of the Indian Independence Act. [4]The resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, which India endorsed, required that first Pakistan withdraw from the territories it had seized. Only after this and other conditions spelt out in the resolution had been completed was there any question of any plebiscite being considered. Pakistan has still not complied with the preliminary conditions of the resolutions and continues to occupy the territory of Jammu and Kashmir.[5]The UN Resolutions lapsed with refusal of Pakistan to vacate PoK and permit plebiscite (through Plebiscite Administration) under Indian supervision. [6]“A. Restoration of peace and order1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen andPakistani nationals notnormally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusioninto the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;2. The Government of India should:(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council'sresolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of thefighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawingtheir own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required forthe support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;(c) When the Indian forces have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange inconsultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces.14. The Government of India should ensure that….(c) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection. (Abdullah Govt failed to protect Hindu and Sikh minorities leading to their exodus)It was further eroded when UN representative Sir Owen Dixon reported that:“Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that themain points of difference preventing agreement between the parties were:(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarization of the State preparatory to the holding of a plebiscite,and(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of government in the State necessary to ensure a freeand fair plebiscite,” Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree in effectingthe demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;[7] [8] [9]The Most important aspect was planned demilitarisation with complete withdrawal of Pakistan but permitting Indian Forces for protection of the inhabitants and plebiscite administration besides non-violation of Ceasefire.8. Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their agreement regarding the cease-fire shallcontinue to be faithfully observed and calls upon them to take all possible measures to ensure the creation andmaintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain fromany action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;[10]This was comprehensively broken by Pakistan in 1965 by another attempt to annex Jammu & Kashmir. This led to UNSC Resolution 211 calling upon peaceful resolution of the political problem after withdrawal of all armed personnel to Ceasefire Line.“Convinced that an early cessation of hostilities is essential as a first step towards a peaceful settlement of the outstanding differences between the two countries on Kashmir and other related matters, 1. Demands that a cease-fire should take effect on Wednesday, 22 September 1965, at 0700 hours GMT, and calls upon both Governments to issue orders for a cease-fire at that moment and a subsequent withdrawal of all armed personnel to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965;4. Decides to consider, as soon as paragraph 1 of Council resolution 210(1965) has been implemented, what steps could be taken to assist towards a settlement of the political problem underlying the present conflict, and in the meantime calls on the two Governments to utilize all peaceful means, including those listed in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, to this end;”[11]Lapse of UNSC Resolutions as Ineffective. The UN Resolutions had, in the words of Gunnar Jarring and Dr. Frank Graham lost their relevance to the question as far back as 1957-58. In his report to the Council in 1957 Gunnar Jarring said "..The Council will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively more difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change...”Dr. Frank Graham , the UNCIP’s representative stated in March 1958 "...the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful.[12]Since 1972 Shimla Agreement it became a bilateral issue.“That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.”[13]It was reiterated in 1999 by Vajpayee-Sharif Pact (Lahore Declaration).“Have agreed that their respective Governments: shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Shall intensify their composite and integrated dialogue process for an early and positive outcome of the agreed bilateral agenda.”[14]This bilateralism was broken in 1999 itself by Pakistani aggression to occupy Kargil heights leading to Kargil War.Indian Parliament has resolved to reclaim PoK, Gilgit-Baltistan to the State of J & K in 1994.Following increasing terrorist violence and Pakistan’s attempts to highlight the Kashmir dispute, both houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution on February 22, 1994, emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Pakistan must vacate parts of the State under its occupation. On behalf of the People of India, Firmly declares that-(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and demands that -(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely."[15]Pakistan has no locus standi now except vacating PoK and Gilgit -Baltistan and returning Aksai Chin illegally ceded to China. Article 370 dealing with Governance of J & K is Internal Matter. Read some more."First, why was Article 370 inserted in the Constitution? Or as the great poet and thinker, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, asked in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949: "Why this discrimination please?" The answer was given by Nehru's confidant; the wise but misunderstood Thanjavur Brahmin, Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Minister without portfolio in the first Union Cabinet, a former Diwan to Maharajah Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principal drafter of Article 370). Ayyangar argued that for a variety of reasons, Kashmir, unlike other princely states, was not yet ripe for integration. India had been at war with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir and while there was a ceasefire, the conditions were still "unusual and abnormal”. Part of the State's territory was in the hands of "rebels and enemies”.[16]In fact, today the autonomy enjoyed by the State is a shadow of its former self, and there is virtually no institution of the Republic of India that does not include J&K within its scope and jurisdiction. The only substantial differences from many other States relate to permanent residents and their rights; the non-applicability of Emergency provisions on the grounds of "internal disturbance" without the concurrence of the State; and the name and boundaries of the State, which cannot be altered without the consent of its legislature. Remember J&K is not unique; there are special provisions for several States which are listed in Article 371 and Articles 371-A to 371-I.Can Article 370 be revoked unilaterally? Clause 3 of Article 370 is clear. The President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative but only on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State.In other words, Article 370 can be revoked only if a new Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is convened and is willing to recommend its revocation. Of course, Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to change this provision. But this could be subject to a judicial review which may find that this clause is a basic feature of the relationship between the State and the Centre and cannot, therefore, be amended".What does the Latest Govt Order 272 say?[17]NOTIFICATIONNew Delhi, the 5th August, 2019G.S.R .551(E).- the following Order made by the President is published for general information:-THE CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR) ORDER, 2019C.O. 2721. (1) This Order may be called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.(2) It shall come into force at once, and shall thereupon supersede the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 as amended from time to time.Hence it supersedes the 1954 Government Order which provided Article 370 as Special Provision (Temporary).It also supersedes and alters the provisions as under:(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers; and(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression "Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)" shall read "Legislative Assembly of the State"."What was the Temporariness of Article 370?Article 370 of the Constitution of IndiaTemporary Provisions with respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir1. Notwithstanding anything in this constitution:(a) The provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.For the purposes of this Article, the Govt of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President as Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir acting on the advice of the council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifty day of March 1948.(3) Notwithstanding the anything in the foregoing provisions of the article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may notify.Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in Clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.How has this been notified and managed?The Presidential Order 1954 itself has been superseded. PM (Sadar-e-Riyasat) of J & K has been replaced by Governor.As a Union Territory, J & K will have Legislative Assembly. Governor shall represent the Maharaja and his Sadar-e-Riyasat. Consituent Assembly shall be represented by the Council of Ministers as advising currently to the Governor.Now President has notified annulment of Temporary Provisions of Article 370 (Under provisions of Section 3) and modified the Government Order of 1954 which has been placed in the Parliament for approval (Passed now). Governor re-designated as the Sadar-e-Riyasat will approve it on behalf the Constituent Assembly (having been duly consulted already) as advised by the Council of Ministers (re-designated as Legislative Assembly). Later the Legislative Assembly shall also approve the Order of the Governor to seal the legal process. Delimitation and separation of Ladakh would ensure that the majority is Jammu dominant as per actual electoral college representation while Ladakh runs efficiently like Chandigarh Administration.Where is the scope for International intervention in internal matters of Indian Constitution?Post Script:In an indication of the shifting geopolitical dynamics in the region, the South China Morning Post, a Chinese state media, posted an article on August 1 referring to Ladakh as part of the “Indian State of Jammu &Kashmir” instead of its earlier stance of mentioning J&K as a “disputed territory between India and Pakistan.”Amid the troop buildup in Jammu & Kashmir, the Chinese Government also withdrew 60 engineers from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor with the help of Pakistani Defence forces in the wee hours of Friday.The Chinese move assumes significance as Ladakh is also referred to as “Little Tibet” due to the local inhabitants following Tibetan Buddhism.[18]On August 6, the Chinese foreign ministry offered two separate comments: one “on the Current Situation in Jammu Kashmir” and another more specifically “on the Indian Government’s Announcement of the Establishment of the Ladakh Union Territory Which Involves Chinese Territory”.In the first statement, while China declares that it is “seriously concerned” it asks “both India and Pakistan to peacefully resolve the relevant disputes through dialogue and consultation” (emphasis mine). One should read this as the Chinese indicating they do not see it only as an Indian responsibility to “safeguard peace and stability in the region”, that Islamabad should not imagine it has sanction from Beijing to stoke military tensions in the wake of New Delhi’s actions. It could, therefore, be reasonably argued that a change in the status of J&K is not a major concern for China in so far as it involves Pakistan.[19]A day after the Centre scrapped Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and divided the former state into two Union Territories, there is once again a call from Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan for its integration with Ladakh region in India. There have long been protests in Gilgit-Baltistan with people demanding that the region be made part of Jammu and Kashmir. Senge H Sering, an activist in Gilgit-Baltistan, said as per ANI, “Home Minister Amit Shah has said that PoJK is an integral part of Jammu and Kashmir. We believe Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of J&K. We are an extension of Ladakh and we ask for our rights in the constitutional framework of India”[20]The United States has said India's decision to revoke Article 370, which gave a special status to Kashmir, was the country's "internal matter" and called for peace in the region. This comes as a blow to Pakistan's diplomatic effort to raise international concern over the developments in India.[21]Russia says Article 370 move backed by Constitution, asks India, Pakistan to take diplomatic route"We proceed from fact that the changes associated with the change in the status of the state of J&K and its division into two union territories are carried out within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of India," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia added.Earlier, the United States had called on India and Pakistan to maintain restraint and hold direct dialogue to resolve their differences. The US said there was no change in its policy of Kashmir being a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and added that it is up to the two countries to decide on the pace and scope of the talks on the issue.[22]Kashmir is not Afghanistan: Taliban rebukes Pakistan, calls for peace in regionTaliban has slammed Pakistan for linking heightened tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir with the situation in Afghanistan.Urging India and Pakistan not to turn Afghanistan into the 'theater of competition between other countries', Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahed said, "Linking the issue of Kashmir with that of Afghanistan by some parties will not aid in improving the crisis at hand because the issue of Afghanistan is not related."In a statement released on Thursday, Taliban also urged India and Pakistan to refrain from taking steps that could pave a way for "violence and complications" in the region.[23]UN secretary general expresses concern over restrictions, urges restraint/UN Security Council Chief Refuses To Comment On Pak Letter On Article 370In Thursday’s statement, Dujarric invoked the 1972 Simla Agreement to repeat the request for “maximum restraint”. “The Secretary-General also recalls the 1972 Agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, also known as the Simla Agreement, which states that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” he said.[24]UN Security Council or UNSC President Joanna Wronecka on Thursday refused to comment on Pakistan's letter to the world body regarding abrogation of Article 370 by India that granted a special status to Jammu and Kashmir.[25]The World has moved on except few ideologically aligned supporters of Islamic Nations such as Contact Group of OIC on Kashmir."The Contact Group condemned India's recent illegal and unilateral steps, aimed at undermining the demographics and the disputed nature of the Jammu and Kashmir in contravention of the relevant UN resolutions, which seriously imperil regional peace and security," the foreign office said. The Contact Group on Jammu & Kashmir was formed in 1994 to coordinate policy of the OIC on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Azerbaijan, Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are its members.[26]Ministry of External Affairs met with all the ambassadors of the P-5 countries – the US, the UK, France, Russia and China – to meet with senior level officials at South Block. And then later in the day, expanded to one on one meetings with other strategic countries such as Australia and Indonesia as well.Footnotes[1] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[2] The Delhi Agreement, 1952[3] https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/polity-1/presidential-order-amending-constitution-application-to-jammu-and-kashmir-order-1954[4] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[5] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[6] Security Council Resolution 47[7] Security Council Resolution 47[8] Security Council Resolution 80[9] Security Council Resolution 91[10] Security Council Resolution 91[11] https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN%20PK_650920_Security%20Council%20Resolution%20211%20%281965%29.pdf[12] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[13] Simla Agreement July 2, 1972[14] Lahore Declaration February, 1999[15] Parliament Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir[16] As Govt Moves to Repeal Article 370, A Look at What the Constitution Says on J&K Special Status[17] Govt proposal on removing Article 370: Full Text[18] https://defenceaviationpost.com/china-changes-tack-calls-jk-indian-state/?fbclid=IwAR2uFRwISDTyLOO3FwQh90qCNdVwt2flgBp9LDvqMQJg9_2yqj-LDn8s5eg[19] J&K Reorganisation | China’s reactions and its implications[20] After Article 370 scrapped in Jammu and Kashmir, calls grow for integration of Gilgit-Baltistan with India | WATCH[21] Article 370 revoked: US says it's India's 'internal matter' in a blow to Pakistan[22] http://Russia says Article 370 move backed by Constitution, asks India, Pakistan to take diplomatic route (https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/article-370-kashmir-russia-india-pakistan-constitution-1579363-2019-08-10)[23] Kashmir is not Afghanistan: Taliban rebukes Pakistan, calls for peace in region[24] Kashmir: UN secretary general expresses concern over restrictions, urges restraint[25] UN Security Council Chief Refuses To Comment On Pak Letter On Article 370[26] Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on J&K Terms Modi Govt’s Decision to Revoke Article 370 ‘Illegal’

In Arizona our Supreme Court did a year long study and issued a report with recommendations that was sent to our legislature. A very reasonable report by serious, professional, credentialed people making recommendations that would make a significant impact in the system. Here is the executive summary so you can see it’s not frivolous in any way. Unfortunately it had no success in 2017. They will try again in 2018 but it’s a hard battle in our legislature.How long will it take? If we do not change our elected officials, it will take a long time. If there is no vested interest in reducing prison occupancy, it will take a long time. As Americans it is up to us to decide.TASK FORCE ON FAIR JUSTICE FOR ALL:Court-Ordered Fines, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesChair – Mr. Dave Byers, Administrative Director, AOC Vice-Chair – Mr. Tom O’Connell, Pretrial Manager, AOCMr. Kent Batty, Court Administrator, Superior Court in Pima CountyHonorable Michael Robert Bluff, Associate Presiding Judge Superior Court in Yavapai CountyHonorable Maria Elena Cruz, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Yuma CountyMr. Bob James, Deputy Court Administrator Superior Court, Maricopa CountyMs. Rebecca Steele, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Clerk of CourtHonorable Lisa Roberts , Commissioner, Superior Court in Maricopa CountyHonorable Dorothy Little, President, Arizona Justice of the Peace Association,Payson Magistrate CourtMEMBERSHonorable Antonio Riojas, Presiding Magistrate Tucson City CourtHonorable Thomas Robinson, Tempe Municipal CourtHonorable Don Taylor, Chief Presiding Judge Phoenix Municipal CourtMr. Doug Kooi, Court Administrator, Pima County Consolidated Justice CourtMr. Jeffrey Fine, Court Administrator, Maricopa County Justice CourtsMr. Michael Kurtenbach, Assistant Chief Community Services Division,City of Phoenix Police DepartmentMs. India Davis, Corrections Chief, Pima County Sheriff’s DepartmentMs. Mary Ellen Sheppard, Assistant County Manager Maricopa CountyiiiMr. Ryan Glover, Prosecutor, Glendale City Prosecutor’s OfficeMr. Paul Julien, Judicial Education Officer Education Services Division, AOC Judge Pro TemMs. Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services, AOC Liaison to Pretrial Advisory CommitteeMr. Jeremy Mussman, Deputy Director, Maricopa County Public Defender’s OfficeMr. Tony Penn, Arizona Judicial Council Public Member RepresentativePresident and CEO, United Way of Tucson and Southern ArizonaHonorable John Hudson, Presiding Judge, Gilbert Municipal CourtMr. Leonardo Ruiz, Deputy County Attorney Maricopa County Attorney’s OfficeMs. Dianne Post, Attorney, Arizona State NAACPMs. Alessandra Soler , Executive Director of the Arizona ACLUAOC Staff:Ms. Theresa Barrett, Court Programs Unit, Manager Court Services DivisionMs. Kathy Sekardi, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMr. Patrick Scott, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Kay Radwanski, Senior Court Policy Analyst Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Pickard, Court Specialist, Court Services DivisionMs. Sabrina Nash, Administrative Assistant Court Services DivisionMs. Susan Hunt, Executive Assistant Executive OfficeivJustice for AllReport and Recommendations of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release PoliciesExecutive SummaryTASK FORCE PURPOSEOn March 3, 2016, Chief Justice Scott Bales issued Administrative Order No. 2016-16, which established the Task Force on Fair Justice for All: Court-Ordered Fines, Penalties, Fees, and Pretrial Release Policies. The administrative order outlined the purpose of the task force as to study and make recommendations as follows:a) Recommend statutory changes, if needed, court rules, written policies, and processes and procedures for setting, collecting, and reducing or waiving court- imposed payments.b) Recommend options for people who cannot pay the full amount of a sanction at the time of sentencing to make reasonable time payments or perform community service in lieu of some or all of the fine or sanction.c) Recommend best practices for making release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail.d) Review the practice of suspending driver’s licenses1 and consider alternatives to license suspension.1 Throughout this report, the terminology for a driver’s license is used to reflect driving privileges or a driver license as defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes.This report describes the work and recommendations of the members of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the members of the Arizona Supreme Court.1Justice for Alle) Recommend educational programs for judicial officers, including pro tem judges and court staff who are part of the pretrial decision-making process.f) Identify technological solutions and other best practices that provide defendant notifications of court dates and other court-ordered deadlines using mobile applications to reduce the number of defendants who fail to appear for court and to encourage people who receive citations to come to court.The Chief Justice asked the task force to file a report and make recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) by October 31, 2016. The report that follows consists of 53 recommendations, plus additional educational and training recommendations for the AJC’s review and consideration.TASK FORCE ABBREVIATED RECOMMENDATIONSThe annotated recommendations are set forth in more detail in the body of the report. Below is an abbreviated list with links to the full recommendations.Authorize judges to mitigate mandatory minimum fines, fees, surcharges, and penalties if the amount otherwise imposes an unfair economic hardship.Use automated tools to determine a defendant’s ability to pay.Create a Simplified Payment Ability Form when evaluating a defendant’s ability to pay.Use means-tested assistance program qualification as evidence of a defendant’s limited ability to pay.Seek legislation to reclassify certain criminal charges to civil violations for first-time offenses.Implement the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program statewide.Conduct a pilot program that combines the Phoenix Municipal Court’s Compliance Assistance Program with a fine reduction program and reinstatement of defendants’ drivers’ licenses.Test techniques to make it easier for defendants to make time payments on court- imposed financial sanctions.Seek legislation that would grant courts discretion to close cases and write off fines and fees for traffic and misdemeanor after a 20-year period if reasonable collection efforts have not been effective.2Justice for AllAllow probationers to receive earned time credit without consideration of financial assessments, other than restitution to victims.Eliminate or reduce the imposition of the 10 percent annual interest rate on any Criminal Restitution Order.Modify court website information, bond cards, reminder letters, FARE (Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement) letters, and instructions for online citation payment to explain that if the defendant intends to plead guilty or responsible but cannot afford to pay the full amount of the court sanctions at the time of the hearing, the defendant may request a time payment plan.Authorize judges to impose a direct sentence that may include community restitution (service) and education and treatment programs as available sentencing options for misdemeanor offenses.Expand community restitution (service) to be applied to surcharges, as well as fines and fees, and expand this option to sentences imposed by superior courts.Implement English and Spanish Interactive Voice Response (IVR), email, or a text messaging system to remind defendants of court dates, missed payments, and other actions to reduce failures to appear.Modify forms to collect cell phone numbers, secondary phone numbers, and email addresses.Train staff to verify and update contact information for defendants at every opportunity.Provide information to law enforcement agencies regarding the importance of gathering current contact information on the citation form.After a defendant fails to appear, notify the defendant that a warrant will be issued unless the defendant comes to court within five days.For courts operating pretrial service programs, allow pretrial services five days to re-engage defendants who have missed scheduled court dates and delay the issuance of a failure to appear warrant for those defendants who appear on the rescheduled dates.Authorize the court to quash a warrant for failure to appear and reschedule a new court date for a defendant who voluntarily appears in court after a warrant has been issued.3Justice for AllConsider increasing access to the court (e.g., offering hours at night, on weekends, or extending regular hours, taking the court to people in remote areas, and allowing remote video and telephonic appearances).Develop and pilot a system that communicates in English and Spanish (such as video avatars) to provide explanations of options available to defendants who receive tickets or citations.24. Clarify on court informational websites and bond cards that defendants may come to court before the designated court date to resolve a civil traffic case and explain how to reschedule the hearing for those defendants who cannot appear on the scheduled dates.25. Implement the ability to email proof of compliance with a law—such as proof of insurance—to the court to avoid having to appear in person.26. Suspend a driver’s license as a last resort, not a first step.Make a first offense of driving on a suspended license a civil violation rather than a criminal offense.Provide courts with the ability to collect and use updated contact information, such as a database service, before issuing a warrant or a reminder in aging cases.Authorize courts to impose restrictions on driving—such as “to and from work only”—as an alternative to suspending a driver’s license altogether.Prior to or in lieu of issuing a warrant to bring a person to court for failure to pay, courts should employ proactive practices that promote voluntary compliance and appearance.Support renewing efforts to encourage the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators to approach Congress about extending the federal tax intercept program to include intercepting federal tax refunds to pay victim restitution awards, with an exception for those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit.Promote the use of restitution courts, status conferences, and probation review hearings that ensure due process and consider the wishes of the victim. Provide judicial training on the appropriate use of Orders to Show Cause in lieu of warrants and appointment of counsel at hearings involving a defendant’s loss of liberty.Coordinate where possible with the local regional behavioral health authority to assist the court or pretrial services in identifying defendants who have previously been diagnosed as mentally ill.4Justice for AllRevise mental health competency statutes for expediting mental competency proceedings for misdemeanor cases.Bring together criminal justice and mental health stakeholders in larger jurisdictions to adopt protocols for addressing people with mental health issues who have been brought to court.Consider the use of specialty courts and other available resources to address a defendant’s treatment and service needs, as well as risk to the community, when processing cases involving persons with mental health needs or other specialized groups.Modify Form 6–Release Order and Form 7–Appearance Bond to simplify language and clarify defendants’ rights in an easy-to-understand format.Eliminate the use of non-traffic criminal bond schedules.Amend Rule 7.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, to require the appointment of counsel if a person remains in jail after the initial appearance.Clarify by rule that small bonds ($5-100) are not required to ensure that the defendant gets credit for time served when defendant is also being held in another case.Authorize the court to temporarily release a “hold” from a limited jurisdiction court and order placement directly into a substance abuse treatment program upon recommendation of the probation department.Expedite the bond process to facilitate timely release to treatment programs.43. Request amendment of A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) and (E) (Offenses not bailable; purpose; preconviction; exceptions) to authorize the court, on its own motion, to set a hearing to determine whether a defendant should be held without bail.Encourage the presence of court-appointed counsel and prosecutors at initial appearance hearings to assist the court in determining appropriate release conditions and to resolve misdemeanor cases.Request the legislature to refer to the people an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to expand preventive detention to allow courts to detain defendants when the court determines that the release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, in addition to when the defendant’s release will not reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community.Eliminate the requirement for cash surety to the greatest extent possible and instead impose reasonable conditions based on the individual’s risk.5Justice for All47. Eliminate the use of a cash bond to secure a defendant’s appearance.48. Expand the use of the public safety risk assessment to limited jurisdiction courts.49. Encourage collaboration between limited jurisdiction courts and pretrial service agencies in superior courts in preparing or providing pretrial risk assessments for limited jurisdiction cases.Establish information sharing between a superior court that has conducted a pretrial risk assessment and a limited jurisdiction court when the defendant is arrested for charges in multiple courts and a release decision must be made in multiple jurisdictions.Request the Arnold Foundation to conduct research on the impact of immigration status on the likelihood of not returning to court if released to ascertain whether it is good public policy to hold these defendants on cash bond.Encourage the Arnold Foundation to conduct periodic reviews to revalidate the Public Safety Assessment [PSA] tool as to its effect on minority populations.53. Provide data to judicial officers to show the effectiveness of the risk assessment tool in actual operation.Develop an educational plan and conduct mandatory training for all judicial officers.Create multi-layer training (court personnel and judicial staff) to include a practical operational curriculum.Develop online training modules for future judicial officers.Host a one-day kick-off summit inviting all stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecutors, county attorneys, public defenders, city council and county board members, the League of Towns and Cities, criminal justice commissions, legislature, and presiding judges) to educate and inform about recommendations of the task force and provide direction for leadership to initiate the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Train judicial officers on the risk principle and the methodology behind the risk assessment tool.Educate judges about the continuum of sentencing options.Educate judges about available community restitution (service) programs and the types of services each offers so that courts may order services that “fit the crime.”Launch a public education campaign to support the adopted recommendations of the task force.6Justice for AllProvide a comprehensive and targeted educational program for all stakeholders (funding authorities, legislators, criminal justice agencies, media, and members of the public) that addresses the shift to a risk-based system rather than a cash-based release system.Request that the Chief Justice issue an administrative order directing the education of all full- and part-time judicial officers about alternatives to financial release conditions. Training and educational components should: Inform judges that cash bonds are not favored. Judges should consider the least onerous terms of release of pretrial detainees that will ensure public safety and the defendant’s return to court for hearings. Train limited jurisdiction court judges to more aggressively allow payment of fines through community service, as permitted by A.R.S. § 13-810.Provide focused judicial education on A.R.S. § 11-584(D) and Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.7(D) about how to determine the amount and method of payment, specifically taking into account the financial resources and the nature of the burden that the payment will impose on the defendant and making specific findings on the record about the defendant’s ability to pay.Update bench books and other judicial aides to be consistent with court-adopted recommendations.INNOVATIONS ALREADY UNDER WAYArizona courts have a history of innovation. As pretrial release issues have arisen, local courts have already begun experimenting with initiatives that support fair justice to all in Arizona. Following are a few projects that highlight promising practices that can be considered for expansion to other jurisdictions.2Compliance Assistance ProgramThe Phoenix Municipal Court has recently implemented a Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) that notifies defendants who have had their driver’s licenses suspended that they can come in to court, arrange a new and affordable time2 See Appendix B for detailed project descriptions of Innovations Already Under Way.7Justice for Allpayment program, and make a down payment on their outstanding fine. More than 5,000 people have taken advantage of the program in the first six months.Interactive Voice Response SystemThe Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts and the Glendale and Mesa Municipal courts have each implemented an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to notify defendants of upcoming court dates, missed payments, or the issuance of warrants. Each jurisdiction has experienced a reduction in the number of people failing to appear—up to 24 percent.3Limited Jurisdiction Mental Competency Proceedings PilotA pilot project coordinated through the Superior Court in Maricopa County authorized Mesa and Glendale municipal courts to conduct Rule 11 mental health competency proceedings originating in their courts on behalf of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The program has reduced the time to process these matters from six months to 60 days.Justice Court Video Appearance CenterThe Maricopa County Justice Court Video Appearance Center represents the first phase of an initiative to significantly reduce the amount of time defendants are held in custody on misdemeanor charges pending appearance in the justice courts.Pima County – MacArthur Safety & Justice ChallengeIn May 2015, Pima County was selected as one of 11 jurisdictions awarded $150,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for Phase I of an initiative to reduce over-incarceration by changing how America thinks about and uses jails. The initiative is a competition to help jurisdictions create fairer, more effective local justice systems through bold innovation. Pima County was later awarded an additional $1.5 million to move forward with Phase 2, which involves creating an implementation plan for broad system change.