FTA or Failure to Appear and FTP, or Failure to Pay is the source of a great percentage of warrants issued by courts along with giving great stress to those involved.
I have been thinking about the civil unrest earlier this
year and the place that failure to appear warrants seems to be involved. In this post, I will share some recent
thinking about these warrants and some tech that can help?
---
Why are there Failure to Appear warrants? They primarily serve as an incentive to
appear at court for a hearing or jury duty.
But…
“In some states, FTA's are actually treated as misdemeanors. This means that you can receive additional
criminal charges for not bothering to appear for a hearing. Since most
misdemeanors carry a maximum jail sentence of one year, obviously this is
something you should take very seriously.”
There are other issues.
First, FTA’s are generally treated equally by law
enforcement without regard for the seriousness of the underlying offense. Do we really need to spend the time and cost
to detain a person for missing a small payment?
Considering that a great number of persons are detained and held under
warrants that they cannot pay, the cost to government and society is
significantly greater than the possible benefit.
Second, there is no statute of limitations on the warrants. In all the jurisdictions I examined I could
not find a time limit on FTA warrants.
They apparently live forever. This
in turn means that it if often very difficult to find the warrant records in
the court after a long period of time.
And if they cannot be found they cannot be addressed/corrected/paid.
Third, another penalty that is part of the FTA process can
be the suspension of the driver’s license. As noted in many studies, seriously
affects the ability of the person to attend court or, to maintain employment to
pay the fines or restitution order. How
does that benefit society?
So how can court technology help to greatly reduce the FTA
problem and make the courts and justice system a little more user
friendly?
First, we must universally implement reminder systems so
that people avoid the FTA/FTP in the first place. These reminder systems must also allow for a
person to reschedule or choose an alternative way (phone/video) to appear at
court. This could be done via an ODR /
chatbot approach or, by telephone.
The Covid-19 pandemic has proven benefits to courts of holding a virtual hearing. These should continue
for FTA/FTP events.
Many court websites suggest the person telephone the court
to work on FTA/FTP issues. The problem
is that courts are often overwhelmed with an in-person visit and telephone calls. The
downturn in business taxes caused by the pandemic will result in less court
staff. I once waited on hold for over an
hour for a clerk’s office to answer my return call only to be
disconnected. “Serial analog technology”
is not the answer in my opinion.
Second, an online approach, using ODR concepts should be
considered. People either cannot take time off from work or have transportation to travel to the courthouse.
Many locations do not even have public transportation that can deliver a
person to the courthouse on the court’s schedule. My friends at Matterhorn report that they have
courts that are doing this.
This new FTA/FTP ODR system could allow a person to schedule
their court appearance both physically and online (by scheduled telephone
conference). They could also pay any
fees or fines that have already been assessed online. And most importantly, if they use the system,
their FTA/FTP warrant and/or their driving license suspension is rescinded
since they have now “appeared”. I would
also allow the system to let the defendant to an acceptable payment
schedule. All of this depends upon the
offense committed as to whether the person is eligible. Considering the expense
of apprehension and detention I would set that line at a high level.
The system must also provide a “receipt” that a person can
carry to prove if they are stopped by law enforcement that they have a new
arrangement with the court. The receipt
can be authenticated online by the officer/deputy.
Further, many courts recommend a letter to be written to the
court explaining a person’s circumstances regarding appearance or payment. The new ODR system should help them write the
letter and allow submission online.
Third, failure to appear/pay warrants need a weighting
factor or seriousness designation. For
example, if the FTA/FTP warrant is for a simple offense and/or small amount
then it is a Level 1. Level 1 would not
allow law enforcement officers to arrest or detain a person. Level 2 warrants may require that the person
call the court in the presence of the officer (yes, that means coverage
overnight and weekends) to satisfy appearance.
And Level 3 warrants may require arrest and detention. But they should rarely be used.
The weighting factor will reduce costs and lessen the tension between
law enforcement and the community.
Last, for additional background on these issues, I would like
to recommend three studies on court-imposed debt. They are:
Ability to Pay, prepared for the 22nd Annual
Liman Center Colloquium.
Driven by Debt, How Driver’s License Suspensions for Unpaid
Fines And Fees Hurt Texas Families
http://stories.texasappleseed.org/driven-by-debt
Citation in Lieu of Arrest by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police
https://www.theiacp.org/projects/citation-in-lieu-of-arrest
And if you have any examples of an online
FTA/FTP system that is in operation please share them in the comments below and
I will be happy to post them.
"First, we must universally implement reminder systems so that people avoid the FTA/FTP in the first place. These reminder systems must also allow for a person to reschedule or choose an alternative way (phone/video) to appear at court. This could be done via an ODR / chatbot approach or, by telephone."
ReplyDeleteI would add that this system should be multilingual. Shameless plug... Garretson Technology's Court Communication Platform does exactly what you said above and is multilingual. It communicates upcoming court dates and payments via text, email, or automated phone call but instead of just notifying the defendant it has an AI backed conversation with them. This gives the defendant the opportunity to reschedule a court date within the rules that the court has setup in the system. Rules like the defendant can only reschedule one time, they can only push back their court date a maximum of 14 days and they must reschedule on a Tuesday or Thursday because that's when we handle their particular matter type. In addition to text/email/call our system provides chatbots, IVRs, and Amazon Alexa and Google apps that run on the same backend logic engine. This brings me to a second point, the court should strive to communicate on whatever communication channel the defendant wants to communicate on. For example the defendant wants to communicate via text then have the system text. If the defendant wants to talk on the phone, great, call our number and talk to our IVR system. The defendant wants to ask Google on their phone or Amazon Alexa in their home no problem our Google and Alexa bots can handle that. Third point... Our court customers have taught us that these communications aren't just for reducing FTAs and FTPs, they work great for communicating with jurors as well. So make sure you are extracting maximum value from whatever system you are using to communicate with court constituents. We have seen our system eliminate 25% of FTAs in just three months and recover hundreds of thousands of dollars by preventing FTPs.