NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

SPONSOR:

Robinson

 

DATE TYPED:

1/27/04

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

Outstanding Bench Warrants Arrest Fee

 

SB

17

 

 

ANALYST:

Koplik

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REVENUE

 

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

 

See Narrative

Recurring

Metro Court Arrest Fee Fund

 

 

See Narrative

Recurring

Magistrate Court Arrest Fee Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Department of the Public Defender

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis

 

Senate Bill 17 adds a new section in law to authorize (a) the metropolitan court and (b) a magistrate court to assess a new “law enforcement arrest fee” totaling $100 against a person arrested on a bench warrant issued by the court.  However, if the individual arrested has more than one outstanding bench warrant when arrested, only one law enforcement arrest fee will be charged.  The “law enforcement arrest fee” shall be transferred to the law enforcement agency responsible for serving the bench warrant.

 

Significant Issues

 

  1. In November 2003, there were 180,000 outstanding warrants in the court system dating from 1979.  There is considerable potential for revenue.  The U.S. Marshal offered to assist in the apprehension of these suspects if the Administrative Office of the Courts would provide a prioritized list.  It is unknown if the AOC has facilitated this offer.

 

  1. SB 17 states that if a person for whom a bench warrant is issued voluntarily appears in court, then the law enforcement arrest fee will not be assessed.

 

  1. The $100 law enforcement arrest fee is assessed per occurrence of arrest.  This may be perceived as inequitable to someone who is arrested because of a single parking ticket turned bench warrant versus someone who has 50+ violations turned bench warrant, but is assessed the same amount ($100).

 

  1. Pursuant to AOC data, there were 19,165 magistrate court bench warrants served in FY 2002.  For the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, there were 11,825 bench warrants served during the same time period.

 

  1. Part of an officer’s duty is to arrest people who violate the law.  This bill now provides revenue to the officer’s department or agency for performing standard law enforcement duties.

 

  1. An offender will be paying a fee for being arrested.  Is passage of this bill to encourage people with bench warrants to appear in court voluntarily or is the bill’s intent to generate revenue for law enforcement agencies?

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

This bill creates two new funds:  the “metropolitan court arrest fee fund” and the “magistrate court arrest fee fund.”  The funds are to be administrated by AOC.  The funds are appropriated to AOC for the purpose of paying the law enforcement agencies for the expenses of arrests.

 

Continuing Appropriations

 

This bill creates new funds and provides for continuing appropriations.  The LFC objects to including continuing appropriation language in the statutory provisions for newly-created funds.  Earmarking reduces the ability of the Legislature to establish spending priorities.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

 

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, AOC would now be responsible for tracking and issuing a substantial number of vouchers for payment to the law enforcement agencies.  Passage of SB 17 would require that the magistrate court staff and the staff of police agencies track the number of warrants that are served each month for the purpose of billing the Administrative Office of the Courts.  Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court would face the same administrative issues. 

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

SB 17 does not indicate how it reconciles with other statutory provisions regulating the path of all monies collected by the New Mexico magistrate courts and metropolitan courts.  When courts collect fees, they are required to deposit them with State Treasury.  State statutes may need to be amended in order for the “law enforcement arrest fee” to be directed to local law enforcement agencies.

 

 

 

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

 

It is conceivable that the law enforcement agency responsible for service of the bench warrant upon which the law enforcement arrest fee is assessed is not the agency which actually arrests the individual.  What happens in those cases?  Does the responsible agency receive the fee or does the agency who actually conduct the arrest get the fee?

 

QUESTIONS

 

  1. What happens if a case gets thrown out or the charges get dropped?  What happens if a person is falsely arrested due to incorrect warrant information?

 

  1. What if an individual can not pay the fee?  Do they stay in jail?  Can community service be offered in lieu of payment of the fee?

 

SK/yr:njw