Maricopa County Justice Court Application To Waive: Fill & Download for Free

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.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS IN ARIZONAGeneral Order 20-20, General Order 20-17, and General Order 20-15:All jury trials scheduled to commence before June 1 are postponed until further notice.Grand jury proceedings are suspended through June 1, and trial deadlines in criminal cases scheduled to begin before June 1are postponed until further notice.All other proceedings, except those deemed necessary by the Court, are postponed until further order. Necessary proceedings include: initial appearances, arraignments, preliminary and detention hearings, changes of plea, sentencings, and necessary revocation hearings.Judges may continue to hold hearings, conferences, bench trials, and other proceedings to the extent necessary, but the proceedings shall be telephonic or virtual when feasible. General Order 20-18 authorizes the use of video and telephone conferencing for various criminal case events.Non-case related activities are canceled until further notice, including naturalization ceremonies, attorney admission ceremonies, mock trials, CLE events, school tours, and all other non-case related gatherings.Customer service counters are closed until May 29, but employees in the Clerk’s Offices are available by phone.Mail and electronic filings will still be processed.In-person filings and criminal debt payments must be left in drop boxes near the courthouse entrances.ARIZONA STATE COURTSArizona State Courts resource center.Arizona State Bar resource center.The Arizona Supreme Court Clerk’s Office remains open but has implemented certain protocols to ensure safety. The protocols are available here.Administrative Order No. 2020-70:It is anticipated that Arizona courts will begin a phased-in approach to conducting in-person hearings and jury trials in late spring or early summer 2020, with a future order setting forth the protocol for the transition.In the meantime, the limitations on court operations and facilities are extended.All in-person proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice, and municipal courts are to be avoided to the greatest extent constitutionally possible until further notice.Empaneling of new petit juries is rescheduled through June 1.Empowers the presiding judge of every superior court to make or suspend local rules to address the public health emergency and to determine how in-person proceedings shall take place to limit in-person contact, follow social distancing guidelines, and liberally grant continuances and additional accommodations to parties, witnesses, attorneys, and juries.Suspends through June 1 any rule that impedes the court’s ability to use technology to limit in-person contact. For example, judges considering orders of protection may conduct ex parte hearings via telephone.Between March 18 and June 1, all time is excluded from the calculation of time under court rules and statutory provisions that require the court to hold proceedings within a specific time frame. Limited exceptions include certain criminal proceedings, domestic violence protective proceedings, child protection temporary custody proceedings, civil commitment hearings, emergency protection of vulnerable person proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings, juvenile detention hearings, election cases, and other proceedings to determine whether to grant emergency relief.Electronic and digital means of creating a verbatim record may be used notwithstanding a party’s request for a certified court reporter.Until June 1, the time to act under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), 52(b), 59(b)(1), (c), (d), and 60(c) may be extended by 30 days upon a showing of good cause.Even if Arizona courts are forced to close entirely, they will strive to be available by telephone and email to the greatest extent possible and will accept documents by drop boxes for documents that cannot be e-filed.Administrative Order No. 2020-58:Extends the deadline for all Arizona attorneys to complete their necessary continuing legal education hours for the 2019–2020 year to December 30, 2020. The deadline to submit an attorney’s affidavit of compliance is similarly extended through December 30, 2020.MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTSGeneral information.Administrative Order No. 2020-60:Through May 1, Maricopa County justice courts will be closed for in-person proceedings, with limited exceptions. The justice courts will continue to hold telephonic hearings and process all types of cases. Contact information for the justice courts can be found here.Parties seeking eviction/forcible detainer, in cases of irreparable and immediate breach, may contact the assigned justice court to request an emergency telephonic hearing. See also the governor’s Executive Order 2020-14 delaying evictions.Debtors requesting a hearing on a writ of garnishment may file an emergency request for a hearing with the assigned justice court to request a telephonic hearing date.Individuals seeking an order of protection or an injunction against harassment may complete petitions through AZPOINT and may file petitions by calling the assigned justice court and providing the AZPOINT confirmation number. Contested hearings will be conducted as directed by further court order.Individuals seeking injunctions against workplace harassment may filed petitions with the justice court, and any contested hearings will be conducted by further court order.Administrative Order No. 2020-58:Suspends protocols for processing requests to defer payment of court fees and costs, and directs special commissioners to grant applications for deferrals between March 25 and May 1, with the understanding that the deferrals will be reviewed and may be modified at a later date.Administrative Order No. 2020-055:With limited exceptions, no in-person proceedings will occur in Maricopa County Superior Courts through April 30, 2020. Telephonic hearings will continue, and the court will be available to process all case types and non-appearance hearings.Physical access to all Maricopa County Superior Courts is restricted to the limited exceptions. Attendance is limited to parties, witnesses, victims, sheriffs’ deputies, detention officers, law enforcement officers, parents in juvenile delinquency matters, and lawyers who are participating in the hearing or event.Any person who has contracted, been exposed to, or is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 must notify the assigned judicial division to appear telephonically or have the hearing rescheduled.Unless an in-person appearance is required by statute or the Arizona or United States Constitution, any proceedings may be converted to a telephonic or video appearance by any judicial office of the court.Parties seeking eviction/forcible detainer, in cases of irreparable and immediate breach, may contact the civil department at 602.506.1497 to request an emergency telephonic hearing and must provide notice to the defendant. See also the governor’s Executive Order 2020-14 delaying evictions.Debtors requesting a hearing on a writ of garnishment may file an emergency request for a hearing, a conformed copy of which must be emailed to [email protected] seeking an injunction against harassment may file a petition at the Law Library Resource Center located in the East Court Building at 101 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. Ex parte hearings will be conducted telephonically, and contested hearings will be conducted as directed by the court, which may be done telephonically or by video.Applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions will be reviewed and orders issued. The application and any supporting materials must be emailed to the assigned judicial division with a copy to [email protected]. Return and evidentiary hearings will be held telephonically or by video unless otherwise ordered.There is good cause to waive any personal appearance at a settlement conference.From April 1, 2020, through April 30, 2020 documents may be served by email to the email address of the party or, if represented, counsel for the party being served, and such service is deemed completed upon electronic transmission. The serving party shall use the email address the receiving party has identified in the caption.On a case-by-case basis, the presiding judge may designate additional proceedings as in-person proceedings.Juror selection in all Maricopa County courts has been halted through April 17.Jurors scheduled to first appear before April 1 are excused and deemed to have fulfilled their service.No new jury trials will be scheduled before March 31.Ongoing jury trials may continue at the discretion of the trial judge/commissioner.Nonessential functions are canceled, including field trips, court tours, law library workshops, volunteer events, and conferences.MODIFIED CLERK OF COURT OPERATIONSThere are restrictions for entry into the superior court. View them here.Filing options are listed here.Marriage license services will be available by appointment only until further notice.Passport services will not be provided until further notice.The public record computer terminals are no longer accessible to the public.The Law Library Resource Counter is limited to applicants seeking a protective order or injunction against harassment.Requests for updates on case statutes should be directed to the assigned judicial divisions rather than the Clerk of Court.News release of COVID-19 measuresMODIFIED CIVIL DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS (Updated April 1)Until April 30, no in-person proceeding will occur, with limited exceptions. The court will hold telephonic hearings and remain available to process all case types and non-appearance proceedings.No new juries will be empaneled through April 30.Judicial officers are to limit in-person proceedings. Requests to convert an in-person proceeding into a telephonic or virtual proceeding should be directed to individual judges.Judicial officers will continue to have access to electronically filed documents and will continue to review, consider, and rule on filings.Oral arguments will presumptively be conducted telephonically. Exceptions must be specifically arranged with the assigned judicial officer.Attendance at any in-person court event is limited to parties, witnesses, and lawyers participating in the event.Couriers will be able to drop off copies of filings in division boxes, but court personnel will not provide signature verifications.Court-appointed arbitrators are permitted to postpone proceedings for up to 120 days from the appointment, upon a showing of good cause. They also may conduct proceedings and hear testimony telephonically.Settlement conference deadlines scheduled to occur before April 17 will be extended.The Law Library Resource Center is restricted to individuals seeking protective orders and orders against harassment.Applications for temporary restraining orders/preliminary injunctions must be filed with the Clerk of Court. The pleadings, application, supporting materials, and proposed form of order must be emailed to the assigned judicial division and to [email protected]. Any return hearing or evidentiary hearing will be held by video or telephone unless otherwise ordered by the court.Parties seeking an eviction/forcible detainer may contact the civil department at 602.506.1497 to request a hearing date. Only eviction/forcible detainer applications alleging an immediate breach and irreparable harm will be heard before April 8. See also the governor’s Executive Order delaying evictions.Debtors may request a telephonic hearing date on a writ of garnishment by filing an “Emergency Request for Hearing” and delivering a conformed copy to the Civil Court Drop Box located at the Central Court Building at 201 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003.Judgment creditors seeking judgment against a garnishee or an order of continuing lien in a transcript of judgment case must deliver a garnishment packet to the Civil Court Drop Box located at the Central Court Building at 201 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003.Default judgment packets may be mailed to the assigned commissioner’s division. Hearings for excess proceeds and name changes will be vacated through April 30.[1]Sherman & Howard gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Extern Law Clerk Jake Rapp in preparing this memorandum.Footnotes[1] What You Should Know About How COVID-19 Is Affecting Courts In Arizona - Sherman & Howard

They are, but it’s a scam here’s an article from prison legal news.How the Courts View ACA Accreditationby Alex FriedmannThe American Correctional Association (ACA), a private non-profit organization composed mostly of current and former corrections officials, provides accreditation to prisons, jails and other detention facilities.According to the ACA, “Accreditation is a system of verification that correctional agencies/facilities comply with national standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association. Accreditation is achieved through a series of reviews, evaluations, audits and hearings.”To achieve accreditation a facility must comply with 100% of applicable mandatory standards and at least 90% of applicable non-mandatory standards. Under some circumstances, the ACA may waive certain accreditation standards. There are different standards for different types of facilities, such as adult correctional institutions, jails, juvenile detention facilities and boot camp programs.The standards are established by the ACA with no oversight by government agencies, and the organization basically sells accreditation by charging fees ranging from $8,100 to $19,500, depending on the number of days and auditors involved and the number of facilities being accredited. [See, e.g.: PLN, Aug. 2014, p.24].The ACA relies heavily on such fees; it reported receiving more than $4.5 million in accreditation fees in 2011 – almost half its total revenue that year. The organization thus has a financial incentive to provide as many accreditations as possible.Notably, the accreditation process is basically a paper review. The ACA does not provide oversight or ongoing monitoring of correctional facilities, but only verifies whether a facility has policies that comply with the ACA’s self-promulgated standards at the time of accreditation. Following initial accreditation, facilities are re-accredited at three-year intervals.As a result, some prisons have experienced significant problems despite being accredited. For example, the Otter Creek Correctional Center in Kentucky, operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), was accredited by the ACA in 2009 when at least five prison employees were prosecuted for raping or sexually abusing prisoners. [See: PLN, Oct. 2009, p.40]. Kentucky and Hawaii withdrew their female prisoners from Otter Creek following the sex scandal, but the facility did not lose its ACA accreditation. The prison has since closed.The privately-operated Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in Mississippi was accredited by the ACA even though the U.S. Department of Justice found “systemic, egregious practices” at the facility, including “brazen” sexual activity between staff and offenders that was “among the worst that we’ve seen in any facility anywhere in the nation.” When approving a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Walnut Grove in 2012, a U.S. District Court wrote that the facility had “allowed a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts and conditions to germinate, the sum of which places the offenders at substantial ongoing risk.” [See: PLN, Nov. 2013, p.30].More recently, the ACA-accredited Idaho Correctional Center, operated by CCA, has been cited for extremely high levels of violence, understaffing and fraudulent reporting of staffing hours. A video of CCA guards failing to intervene while one prisoner was brutally beaten by another has been widely circulated. CCA was held in contempt by a federal court in September 2013 for violating a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against the facility, and a separate suit alleges that CCA employees collaborated with gang members to maintain control at the prison. The state took control of the Idaho Correctional Center on July 1, 2014 and the FBI is currently conducting an investigation into CCA’s staffing fraud. [See: PLN, Oct. 2013, p.28; May 2013, p.22; Feb. 2012, p.30]. Regardless, the facility remains accredited by the ACA.Prisoners who litigate prison and jail conditions cases sometimes try to raise claims related to violations of ACA standards, even though the standards alone do not create enforceable rights. On the other side of such lawsuits, the ACA says the benefits of accreditation for corrections officials include “a stronger defense against litigation through documentation and the demonstration of a ‘good faith’ effort to improve conditions of confinement.”But how do the courts view ACA accreditation – and comparable accreditation of prison and jail medical services by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) – both in terms of claims alleging violations of accreditation standards and as a defense by prison officials?The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543 n.27 (1979) that accreditation does not determine constitutionality. With respect to standards established by organizations such as the American Correctional Association, the Court wrote: “[W]hile the recommendations of these various groups may be instructive in certain cases, they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.”In Grenning v. Miller-Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014), the defendants contended that the level of lighting in a prisoner’s cell “passed the national accreditation standards of the ACA....” However, the Ninth Circuit said it was “unable to determine ... the significance of the ‘accreditation’ by the ACA. We are not informed of the standards of the ACA, nor are we informed about the thoroughness of the testing performed” at the prison. The mere fact of ACA accreditation did not entitle the defendants to summary judgment on the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim. [See article on p.40].The Fifth Circuit stated in Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 337 (5th Cir. 2004) that it was “absurd to suggest that the federal courts should subvert their judgment as to alleged Eighth Amendment violations to the ACA whenever it has relevant standards. Additionally, the ACA’s limited inspections are not be [sic] binding as factual findings on the magistrate or on this court. While compliance with ACA’s standards may be a relevant consideration, it is not per se evidence of constitutionality.”Further, in a lawsuit challenging inadequate medical care in the jail system in Maricopa County, Arizona, a federal district court wrote: “The Board Defendants argue that because the parties stipulated to incorporate in the Amended Judgment the ‘essential’ standards for health services in jails of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (‘NCCHC’), Correctional Health Services adopted policies conforming to NCCHC standards, and Correctional Health Services substantially complies with all of the ‘essential’ NCCHC standards, they have met their burden in proving there are no current and ongoing violations of pretrial detainees’ federal rights.”However, “The Court decides independently whether there are current and ongoing violations of pretrial detainees’ constitutional rights and does not rely on any determinations made by an accrediting organization such as the NCCHC. The NCCHC ‘essential’ standards do not specifically focus on all of pretrial detainees’ constitutional rights.”Additionally, the district court noted that “Some of the NCCHC ‘essential’ standards address administrative functions and are not narrowly tailored to meet constitutional requirements,” and “[a]lthough the NCCHC standards may be helpful for a jail, the Court makes its findings based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”The court found that healthcare services provided by the defendants remained unconstitutional despite NCCHC accreditation. See: Graves v. Arpaio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85935 (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2008) [PLN, Jan. 2010, p.43; May 2009, p.28].In Texas, a federal district court commented on accreditation of Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) facilities by both the ACA and NCCHC.“While TDCJ’s participation in the ACA accreditation process is to be commended, accreditation, in itself, is not a clear indication that TDCJ is properly following its policies and procedures. Experts from both parties recognized the limitations of ACA accreditation,” the court wrote, noting “that ACA accreditation is a tool, but not a constitutional standard.”The district court also remarked that one expert had “testified to a number of examples where a prison system was accredited by the ACA, but was, nevertheless, held by a court to be operating in an unconstitutional fashion, including prisons in Florida and the San Quentin prison in California.”With respect to accreditation by the NCCHC, the district court stated: “Rather than analyze the actual quality of the medical care received by inmates, the NCCHC’s evaluation focuses on the written standards, policies, protocols, bureaucracy, and infrastructure that makes up the medical care system [cite omitted]. Further undermining defendants’ attempt to use NCCHC accreditation as a proxy for a certification of the constitutionality of its medical care is the fact that at least two of the plaintiffs’ experts who testified about profound shortcomings in the quality of care in TDCJ-ID also work as NCCHC accreditors.... While NCCHC accreditation does bolster defendants’ claims that its medical care system is functioning constitutionally, the accreditation simply cannot be dispositive of such a conclusion.” See: Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F.Supp.2d 855, 902, 924-25 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001).A U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico also found that prison medical care was unconstitutional despite accreditation by the NCCHC, with the court noting “the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1992 had accredited the medical care programs at four prisons and provisionally accredited four more, with several additional prisons under consideration for accreditation. However, one of the monitor’s consultants, Dr. Ronald Shansky, found noncompliance with at least one essential standard at every institution the Commission had accredited.” The court further observed that “During this investigation, Department of Health personnel provided the monitor’s staff with credible evidence that other employees had falsified documents in support of accreditation.” See: Feliciano v. Gonzalez, 13 F.Supp.2d 151, 158 n.3 (D.P.R. 1998).A Florida district court addressed ACA accreditation in LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F.Supp. 647, 655 (S.D. Fla. 1987), appeal dismissed, 861 F.2d 724 (11th Cir. 1988), stating: “Defendants make much of the relevance to this litigation of the accreditation of prisons and [Glades Correctional Institution] in particular by the American Correctional Association. The Magistrate found that the GCI accreditation had ‘virtually no significance’ to this lawsuit because accredited prisons have been found unconstitutional by courts. Having considered the GCI accreditation along with the remainder of the evidence, the undersigned district court finds it of marginal relevance in this case.”And in a challenge to the adequacy of the law library at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility in Colorado, a district court stated it was “simply ludicrous” for the defendants to argue they were entitled to summary judgment because “the American Correctional Association formally accredited” the facility and ACA standards address prison law libraries. See: Boulies v. Ricketts, 518 F.Supp. 687, 689 (D. Colo. 1981).However, other courts have taken ACA accreditation into consideration when determining the constitutionality of policies or practices at correctional facilities, such as in Yellow Horse v. Pennington County, 225 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2000) (suicide prevention procedures) and Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 697 (4th Cir. 1999) (death of restrained prisoner).Therefore, incarcerated litigants should use caution when basing arguments on violations of accreditation standards rather than violations of constitutional or statutory rights, and should note the above case law when corrections officials raise accreditation as a defense in lawsuits related to conditions of confinement in prisons and jails.Additional source: http://www.aca.org