Case Flow Management in
Limited Jurisdiction Courts
Managing a Photo
Enforcement Program via
Partnership
Janet G. Cornell, Court Administrator
Daniel W. Edwards, Deputy Court Administrator
Scottsdale, AZ, City Court
Presented to the National Association for Court Management July 15, 2008
1
Photo Enforcement (PE)
Question:
What comes to mind when you
hear that phrase?
2
3
Why Today’s Session



Recent and increased interest in
photo enforcement implementation
Photo enforcement as a specialized
docket
Case study in partnering for service
4
Today We’ll Cover








Elements of photo enforcement
Partnership and collaboration items
Program oversight issues
Role of the court
Case flow management
Program performance
Challenges and lessons learned
Ethical issues
5
What’s Your Interest?






Judges
Court staff
Policy setters
Court finance managers
Vendor
Other
6
Question for Attendees:


Which of your courts has a photo
enforcement program in place?
Which of you are currently
evaluating or planning for photo
enforcement?
7
Program Policy Areas
Budget
Workload
Assessment
Operational
Statistics
Program
Policy
Areas
Laws, Rules,
Statutes
Public
Information
Business
Rules &
Policies
8
AZ Photo Enforcement Programs

Town of Paradise Valley, AZ – started in 1987

20 plus courts live with photo enforcement



Department of Public Safety Photo Enforcement
City/County Photo Enforcement
Methods vary


Sensors (piezoelectric strips) or radar
Intersection-mid block-vans
9
The Scottsdale Experience


Scottsdale program operations started 1996-1997
Current installations – streets, mid block, freeway:
 7 fixed intersections – speed, red light
 4 fixed installations, mid block – speed
 6 fixed sites on freeway - speed
 4 mobile vans – speed

City operated program & State overseen program

Over 300,000 photo cites since 2006

Vendor change in July 2007


On drawing board – coming
 Multiple charges on single citation form
 Left hand turn on red violations
Sparked momentum for statewide enforcement
10
Elements of a PE Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Law enforcement driven
Vendor involvement
Technology and automation
Program visibility
Political sensitivity of topic
Citizen acceptance
11
Photo Enforcement ‘Partners’
Court
Law Enforcement
Gov’t Policy Leaders
Budget Dept
Legal Dept.
Public Information
Collection Agency
Transportation
Driving School
Prosecutor
Photo Vendor
Process Service Vendor
12
Photo Enforcement Program – What
are the Goals?
Raise $$?
Test Technology?
Revenue Neutral?
Program Goals?
Transportation Initiative?
Change Behavior?
Law Enforcement Initiative?
13
Caseflow Management


Typical Case Flow Topics
 Early intervention
 Deadlines for events
 Court supervision of cases
 Use of monitoring and information systems
Additional Issues
 Law enforcement partner
 Local prosecutor – involved or not?
 Services: process service, driving school,
collections
14
Flow Chart of NOV Process
15
Flow Chart of Citation Process
16
Timeline
Photo Enforcement Timeline/Benchmarks
Vendor
Vendor
Initial
Court
Approx
Last day
New
Court's Notice to
has 10
mails/
ARR
sends
date
to serv e
ARR
State of dismssals
days to
issues
date
serv ice
v endor
per
date &
rev iew/
cite
=
eligible
sends
business
return
Last
dismissed
create
file to
EZM
rules ( ARR
due to
day
per court
date
ATS
process
date
court
return
order
plus 30
(ARR +
serv ice
minus 5
can be
08-05
days
3 days)
package
days)
filed
apprv /
Filing
create
Date
Ev ent
/DOV
Court Days
Day 0
Cases
court
>>>>
Day 0
Day 10
ARS 28-1592 60 days to
commence action
Day 30
Day 33
Day 34
ARS 28-1593
10 days to file with court
Day 60
Day 85
Rule 4 Defendant must
respond by this date or FTA
Day 90
Day 91
Rule 4 Defendant must
answer by this date
Day 120 Day 121
ARS 28-1592 Rule 4 Court
Service Period can dismiss
17
Where Money Goes
Court Enhancement Fund
$10.00
State of Arizona
Mandated Surcharge
$70.76
$10.00
$70.76
$74.24
Allocation of Typical Photo
Enforcement Fine:
40.43%
$70.76
State's Portion
11.43%
$20.00
County's Portion
42.42%
$74.24
City's Portion
5.71%
$10.00
Crt. Enhancemnt
100.00%
$175.00
Total
$20.00
City General Fund
Vendor Contract &
Direct Costs : Court,
Police and Prosecutor
$74.24
Maricopa County
Mandated Surchage
$20.00
18
Unique to PE Program







Law enforcement program
Court based activities
Electronic filing program
Data exchanges critical
Data integration imperative
Notice of violation process
Obtaining jurisdiction on case
19
Court Processing Differences

Officer written complaints





Personal jurisdiction
Violator identified
Default judgment if no answer
Collection actions follow
Photo enforcement complaints





No service upon issuance
Defendant not always driver
Vendor involvement – police ‘authorization’
No default or collections without service
Dismissals if no voluntary compliance or service
20
Program Oversight Issues





Legislative issues
Statutes, rules and policies
Political nature
Media interests
Records requests
21
Legislative Issues

Legislators/citizens get involved

Other partners impacted

Constitutionality

Owner vs. Driver
22
Rules, Statutes, Administrative Orders





ARS 28-645 – Red light violations
ARS 28-654 – Signage
ARS 28-3392 – Defensive driving
ARS 28-1592 – Commencement of
action and service
ARS 28-1593 – Days to file in court
with service of complaint
23
Rules, Statutes, Administrative Orders




Rule 4 – Rules of Civil Procedure –
time for response
Rule 4 – Waiver of service
Case dismissal times – After 90 days,
may dismiss
Administrative Orders
24
Political Nature

Politically charged program

Surveys

Revisited annually by legislature
25
Media Interests/Records Requests

Media





Heightened interest
Statistics/Revenue
“Super speeders”
“Frequent fliers”
Records requests


Individual cases
Bulk records
26
Role of the Court?





Boundaries may be fluid
Court expertise and interest
Assertiveness of court to be at table
Caseflow management principles
Educating partners on judicial
processes
27
The ‘Balancing Act’







Court - executive - legislative
Court as neutral, yet engaged for
operational data – case, financial
Law enforcement - court
Vendor - government
Facts and anecdotal information
Program information ‘goal’
Technology differences – court,
vendor, law enforcement, prosecutor
28
Court as Center of Data
PE Vendor
Collection
Agency
Driving School
Process Server
Vendor
Court IVR
System
Court
Fine Payments
Public &
Media
Access
Supreme
Police/Law
Court Data
Enforcement
Warehouse
Prosecutor
29
Court Resources Affected

Customer service staff




Judicial officers








In person
On phone
Handling paperwork/documents
Hearing times
Contested hearings
Court security
Court interpreters
Daily processing tasks
Policy issue time
Program management – internal/administrative,
procurement and contract issues
Global policy issues – city/government officials
30
Statistics Measured by Our Court







Customers on site
Front counter volume
Phone calls
IVR system
Correspondence
Initial hearings
Contested hearings







Security screening
Queuing system
Docket codes
Web/IVR use
Revenue
Driving School
Process Service
31
Court Statistics
32
Court Statistics
33
Court Statistics
Photo Enforcement - Surface Streets FY 2007/08
Speed & Red Light Citations - Filed
Actual thru Apr08 + Forecast
Actual YTD : Aprthru Jun-08 Actual Apr-08
08
36,739
3,429
30,749
Speed & Red Light Citations - Successful dispositions
Revenue
General Fund revenue
22,789
$
Court Enhancement revenue
Judicial Collection Enhancement revenue
Total City Revenue $
1,850,040
2,160
18,959
$
167,083
234,092
12,989
2,097,120 $
21,043
1,056
189,182
$
939,285 $
109,448
22,668
300,815
1,372,216 $
83,011
8,646
19,216
110,872
$
$
768,030
81,559
12,668
250,839
1,113,096
477,824 $
56,211
$
366,341
$
123,980
$
1,015,932
$
1,479,436
189,719
10,786
1,528,356
Note: Bonds and State Surcharges are not included as City Revenue
Estimated Direct Expense
PD Vendor Contract fees
PD Process Service fees
PD Public Awareness/Advertising
PD Staff, related equipment, other
Prosecutor Contract Staff, related equipment, other
Court Contract Staff, related equipment, other
$
Total Direct Expense $
General Fund Revenue less Direct Expense
Mandated Surcharges (paid to the State)
$
34
Lessons Learned








Early and continuous court involvement
Plan ahead - court involvement at
conceptual stage
Court relationships – internal and external
Program statistics critical
Create metrics in advance - court at center
of data
Court also financial focal point due to data
Program oversight external to court
Impacts of vendor contract structure
35
More Lessons Learned







Program is technology driven
Rules, processes and forms manually based
with an automation driven program
Project management practices critical
Establish single court spokesperson – then
coordinate with city, law enforcement
spokesperson
Be aware of, alert to program assumptions
Level of program interest – political issue
Citizen perceptions of the court, staff
customer service, staffing levels, work
volumes, policy issues
36
Challenges





Automation a blessing and a curse
Push/pull of court – law enforcement
Court based enforcement – defaulting a
case, issuing warrants, collections
agency, tax intercepts
Coordination with vendor, and partners
for data availability and definition
Level of court involvement in vendor
selection, contract oversight
37
Our Response







Mobilize
Get/remain involved – ‘at the table’
Watch and monitor
Create triage mechanisms
Analyze customer entry points for
resources needed (IVR, web, on site)
Determine statistics to publish
Automation = FTE(s)
38
12 Steps You Can Take to Prepare
for Photo Enforcement
Partner the presiding judge and court administrator
on program philosophy.
2. Get the court involved in planning and preparation.
3. Run workload scenarios.
4. Establish performance and counting methods for
workload.
5. Prepare cost analysis process and measures.
6. Prepare technology.
7. Review rules, statutes and legal requirements.
8. Map out the process and flow and timeline.
9. Consider political climate with local leaders,
legislature, media/press.
10. Create written procedures, business rules, and
policies or procedures.
11. Anticipate requests for information data and
statistics.
12. Establish a single point of contact for your court to
speak about the program.
39
1.
Today’s Successes







Technology based operation
Standardized citation content
Collaboration: court and partners
Use of FAQs
Creation of specialized calendar
Assistance from the AOC
Sharing experiences with other
courts
40
Ethical Issues and Scenarios
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Should your judges be trained by the photo
enforcement vendor on how the equipment operates?
Can court staff attend a vendor demonstration?
Should court employees attend a vendor sponsored
‘users’ conference?
Can the court limit the data that is released about the
court’s photo enforcement cases?
Legal information versus legal advice, where does
court staff draw the line in explaining the process
(what is process service? Who made the rule to
require a hearing on site?)
Should a judge speak to a civics group regarding a
photo enforcement initiative?
41
Photo Enforcement – Specialty Court
or Problem Solving Court?
Specialty Court
 Cases sent to
special
docket/calendar
 Locally based
program
 Case type specific
Problem Solving Court
 Behavior change
desired
 Speed reduction
desire
 Public safety goal
 Behavior related
driving school
42
Q-A


Questions?
Comments?
43
Resources

Daniel Edwards –



Janet Cornell –



Phone: 480-312-3092
Email: dwedwards@scottsdaleaz.gov
Phone: 480-312-2775
Email: jcornell@scottsdaleaz.gov
www.ncsconline.org - for article copy

http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/CourTopics/pub
s.asp?topic=Traffi
44