Page images
PDF
EPUB

hearings. In smaller cities and rural areas, however, part-time magistrates are used primarily to dispose of misdemeanors and petty offenses. Law enforcement at Corps of Engineers projects typically impacts on the part-time magistrates, and it is among them that increased federal judicial costs will be incurred.

While the U.S. magistrate system is extensive, it represents only a small portion of federal judiciary outlays and offers a substantial savings in the overall cost of case handling. The maximum salary of a fulltime magistrate is $36,000 as against a district judge's salary of $40,000 to $50,000, and the cost to the Government of supporting a full-time magistrate is about half the cost of the salary, staff, and offices for a judge. For part-time magistrates the cost is even less. The maximum salary for a part-time magistrate is $18,000, but some salaries are as low as $300 and the average compensation including expenses is approxi

mately $4,000.1 Salary and expenses are provided in approximate propor

tion to caseload. Part-time magistrates hold federal court as required, but, at a minimum, court is held once a month.

It is reasonable to expect that increased citation and arrest activity will impact the system of U.S. magistrates, where federal personnel are used to enforce federal statutes. One possible consequence is an increase in both citations and arrests. This will have an impact on the workload of U.S. magistrates, who dispose of minor offenses, and a lesser impact on the U.S. District Courts in the case of felonies and other serious offenses. A second possibility is no increase in federal arrests, reflecting a reliance on citations as the primary enforcement tool. In this case the workload of federal magistrates would be increased slightly, but the U.S. District Courts would not be affected.

Cost and workload impact on U.S. magistrates should be considered against several factors. First, the use of collateral forfeiture, which is permitted in most, though not all districts, serves to absorb a large portion of potential judicial workload due to increased enforcement

activity.

Secondly, the magistrates' workload in rural areas is based

on all federal activity, including park and forest services and other defense services. Hunting, fishing and camping violations accounted for only 6.5 percent of misdemeanors and petty violations handled by all magistrates in 1973;2 the Corps share of all minor and petty offenses handled by part-time magistrates in 1973 was 5.2 percent.3

Consideration must be made as to whether or not the amount of increased court workload would justify and require the appointment of a full-time magistrate and also, whether the caseload of felonies and other serious offenses generated would be beyond the magistrate's jurisdiction and significantly impact the district court.

In order to approach the full-time requirement, simultaneous Corps and other actual court caseloads for the average part-time magistrate would have to be significantly increased. There is no justification for such a forecast in the near future; even a substantial increase in Corpgenerated workload would not exceed the statutory capacity of a significant number of magistrates.

Impact of felony arrests on the federal district courts is and will be minor as a total proportion of criminal caseload. The courts already handle those felonies where arrest is made by federal officers. However, the number of felony arrests made by federal, state and local officers combined in Corps areas is minimal, rarely approaching 10 percent of all citation activity. At the level in 1973, Corps related felonies would constitute less than two tenths of one percent of criminal proceedings 4 in U.S. district courts.

The impact of expanded Corps enforcement on the part-time magistrates who serve Corps areas must be considered in the light of the Corps present share of the overall magistrate workload, as indicated by the figures below:

[blocks in formation]

It should be noted, however, that both the U.S. magistrate system and Corps citation program are relatively new; 1972 was the first full year of operation for the federal magistrates and the Corps citation program was fully implemented in February 1972. Growth figures for 1972 to 1973, therefore, represent implementation more than they reflect a rising level of violations. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts predicts that the growth in matters handled by all magistrates (less than 20 percent in 1973) will level off. A 10-15 percent growth calculation has been used for the 1975 budget request.

Actual increases in Corps generated caseload depends on policy, manpower and visitor population. Even a substantial increase in citation activity at Corps lakes would still represent only a minor portion of part-time U.S. magistrates caseload.

[blocks in formation]

A policy of visitor protection through enforcement of state and local law, rather than federal statutes, will impact state and local court systems as law enforcement activity increases significantly. The local area misdemeanor and felony courts already receive and dispose of cases from Corps property brought by state and local police, sheriffs, park rangers, conservation authorities, and a variety of other agencies with some enforcement authority around the lakes.

by courts of limited or special jurisdiction known by a variety of titles including municipal, county or magistrates court. More specialized courts include traffic and juvenile court. Traffic cases account for approximately half of the caseload in all lower courts throughout 5 the country. Some advantages of processing cases through local courts include: (1) proximity to site; (2) more frequent convening of court; (3) lower overall costs than federal counterparts; and 4) frequently specialized juvenile courts with better facilities and experience with local juveniles than distant federal courts.

The role of local courts is limited by the fact that resource protection, a major responsibility of the Corps as reflected in Title 36, is not uniformly provided for in different state codes. The Corps, as a result, has typically provided its own resource protection enforcement. The bulk of offenses reported by federal personnel involve federal Title 36 resource protection violations. The federal law and federal courts will, therefore, retain a significant role at Corps lakes regardless of law enforcement policy. The local courts may have a significant complementary role in traffic and other misdemeanors and felony offenses, but will not bear the impact of all enforcement.

Operating costs and offsetting revenues vary too much among the states for a standard estimate of cost impact to be meaningful for any one locality; however, salaries and expenses for state courts are on the 6 average 69 percent of federal counterparts. Local and part-time judges and magistrates receive lower compensation, but federal part-time magistrates also receive much less in salary and expenses than do district courts staffs. It is reasonable to expect then that cost impact of increased enforcement will be comparable between local courts and U.S. magistrates for misdemeanors and petty offenses. For felonies and possibly juvenile cases, however, cost impact would be an average 30 percent below U.S. District Court levels.

More significant than the budgetary impact of Corps enforcement policy on the courts is the continuing cooperation which the Corps requires from each judicial district in order to make its enforcement credible. Due to the independence enjoyed by federal judges and particularly by the chief judge of each district, there are significant policy differences between judicial districts and sometimes between courts within a district.

Additionally, with the decentralized operations of both the Corps and the federal judiciary, these differences may not be apparent to the administrators. For example, in one district the chief judge is reported to disregard citations issued by the Corps. In another district immediately adjacent, the senior judge leans in the opposite direction by refusing to permit collateral forfeiture. In effect a defendant cited for the most minor offense in this district must travel up to 50 miles to appear before a federal magistrate, and farther if the defendant is from outside the state.

Another less drastic contrast which affects the orderly management of citation enforcement is the lack of uniformity in collateral or fine schedules between judicial districts. In some cases the district engineer assisted by district counsel has obtained agreement on a uniform schedule among the judicial districts in his project areas; however, there is currently no reason why the collateral fees could not be uniform nationwide. Revenue obtained should not be a significant factor, since fines and forfeited collateral are deposited into a general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and are not applicable to local expenses.

The Engineer Provost Marshal currently is represented on a liaison committee for the judiciary. The Corps should use this committee and other appropriate channels to represent its needs outlined above and seek further cooperation with the judiciary. Maximum cooperation, consistent with the legal independence of the judiciary, is critical to the

« PreviousContinue »