Municipal Courts

From Better Together STL Wiki

This report is the product of Better Together’s study of municipal courts in St. Louis City and County. Better Together produced it as the first in a series of reports regarding the provision of public safety services in the region. Subsequent reports include an examination of Police and Fire Protection . As with Better Together’s previous studies on public finance, economic development, and public health, this report was conducted with the guidance and insight of practitioners, academic experts, advocates, and stakeholders from across the St. Louis region.

The structure of this report is centered on four key questions:

  1. How do municipal courts in St. Louis City and County function individually and as a system?
  2. What are considered to be best practices in the field of municipal courts?
  3. How does the St. Louis City and St. Louis County region compare to the best-practices?
  4. What are scenarios for going forward that could improve the current municipal court system?

An honest discussion about the current municipal court system, and its impacts on the people for whom it is designed to provide justice, is critical to the healing and eventual growth of the St. Louis region. Recent events have highlighted a need for this difficult discussion. It is one that must be had in the pursuit of a stronger region that not only enjoys world-class parks, museums, and universities, but also insists on a basic standard of living and justice for each and every individual that calls the St. Louis region home. It is not the intent of this report to provide the answers to the issues of the municipal courts system. Rather, its goal is to provide the facts and data necessary to foster a community-wide discussion upon which answers and potential reforms can be based.

Municipal Courts

The Landscape of Municipal Courts in St. Louis City and County

In St. Louis City and County there are 82 municipal courts. Of these 82 courts, 1 is St. Louis City Municipal Court, and 1 is St. Louis County, while the remaining 80 courts lie in municipalities throughout St. Louis County. Each of these 82 courts are divisions of the state circuit in which they are located. They are established by and derive their authority over municipal ordinances from Article V of the Missouri Constitution [1] and Section 479 [2] of the Missouri Revised Statutes.

Oversight of municipal courts is established by the Missouri Supreme Court Rules, which state that a presiding judge in each Missouri judicial circuit has general administrative authority over the judges and court personnel of all divisions of the circuit court hearing and determining ordinance violations within the circuit. [3] Therefore, a judge in each state judicial circuit is responsible for overseeing the municipal courts operating within that circuit as they are a division of that larger state circuit. St. Louis City is located in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri and comprises the entirety of the 22nd Circuit. Judge Philip Heagney, a Missouri Circuit Court Judge from the 22nd Judicial Circuit, presides over the St. Louis City Municipal Court. [4] St. Louis County is located in the 21st Judicial Circuit of Missouri and comprises the entirety of the 21st Circuit. Presiding Judge Maura McShane from the 21st Judicial Circuit oversees the municipal courts in St. Louis County. [5]

A Problem With Oversight

The oversight for municipal courts as established appears sound. For virtually every circuit in the state, it provides a sufficient method of oversight. However, the exception to this seemingly sufficient model lies in St. Louis County. As the oversight structure is determined by the boundaries of a judicial circuit and not by overall workload, the current structure is vulnerable to reflecting the fragmentation present within the circuit. The result is an alarming lack of oversight where it is needed most. For example, St. Louis City’s municipal court is overseen by a presiding judge from the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, while the presiding judge of 21st Judicial Circuit is responsible for the oversight of 81 municipal courts located in the 21st Judicial Circuit. [6] To put that number in a larger context, on average there are 8.6 municipal courts in all other Missouri judicial circuits. The presiding judge of the 21st Circuit is charged with oversight of nearly ten times that amount. The average number of courts is not skewed by judicial circuits on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to number of courts. The 21st Circuit and St. Louis County is the outlier. The next largest number of municipal courts overseen by one circuit is the 39th Circuit (Barry, Lawrence, Stone Counties), which has twenty municipal courts, sixty-one fewer than the 21st Circuit in St. Louis County. [7] Analysis of Jackson County’s 16th Circuit revealed that while Jackson County is the second-largest county in Missouri with a population of 679,996, it contains only 16 municipal courts, just one-fifth of the municipal courts in St. Louis County. [8]

The problem in the oversight of the municipal courts in St. Louis County cannot be attributed to anything other than the fragmentation of the municipal court system. It is simply not possible for one judge to provide proper oversight to 81 municipal courts. Frank Vatterott, municipal judge for the City of Overland , and the leader of a commission of municipal judges looking at possible court reforms, stated in a recent radio interview that the lone presiding judge in St. Louis County simply “can’t control 80 courts.” [9] As the Supreme Court has “superintending power” over all courts in Missouri, [10] as well as rulemaking power such as that employed in Supreme Court Rule 37, [11] it is within its power to address this overwhelming lack of oversight.

While addressing the issue of oversight offers the possibility of preventing future issues moving forward, it does not provide a remedy for the abuses that have steadily become part of the municipal court system and the culture that has been established over the decades such oversight was absent.

Addressing Municipal Court Fines and Fees

In 2013, the municipal courts of St. Louis City and County region collected $61,152,08712 [12] in municipal court fines and fees. During that same time, the combined total of court fines and fees collected by municipal courts in Missouri was $132,032,351.63, meaning that the municipal courts in the region accounted for 46% of all fines and fees collected statewide, though only 22% of Missouri residents live in St. Louis City and County. [13]

Revenue Collected from Municipal Court Fines and Fees (2013)
State of Missouri $132,032,352 % of State Total
St. Louis Region* $61,152,087 46%
St. Louis County $6,699,384 5%
St. Louis City $9,316,287 7%
St. Louis County Municipalities $45,136,416 34%
* Consists of St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Municipalities,in St. Louis County

The question becomes: why does the St. Louis City and County region account for such a large percentage of the fines and fees collected by municipal courts statewide? A deeper look into the numbers shows that as a region St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and the municipalities located in St. Louis County comprise roughly 22% of Missouri’s population, yet account for over double that amount, 46%, of all municipal fines and fees collected statewide.

Further analysis of the numbers reveals that St. Louis City accounts for roughly 5% of Missouri’s population and 7% of its overall municipal fines and fees. [14] Similarly, unincorporated St. Louis County comprises roughly 5% of Missouri’s overall population while accounting for 5% of statewide municipal fines and fees. [15] However, the population of the 90 municipalities in St. Louis County is 675,319, 11% of Missouri’s population, but it accounts for 34% of all fines and fees collected by municipal courts in Missouri statewide. [16]

The reason for the high levels of revenues from municipal court fines and fees is simple – survival of the municipality. While not all municipalities in St. Louis County are generating a large portion of their revenue from court fines and fees, it is the largest single source of revenue for at least fourteen municipalities including Bella Villa , Bellerive , Beverly Hills , Calverton Park , Charlack , Cool Valley , Edmundson , Moline Acres , Normandy , St. Ann, Pine Lawn, Northwoods , Velda City, and Vinita Terrace. [17] Without revenue from fines and fees it is inconceivable that these communities could afford to operate. [18]

MUNICIPALITY POPULATION SALES TAX - GENERAL REVENUE PROPERTY TAX - GENERAL REVENUE REVENUE FROM FINES & FEES GENERAL REVENUE TOTAL
BELLA VILLA 729 $92,524 $0 $371,393 $647,243
BELLERIVE 188 $49,026 $30,861 $71,979 $245,032
BEVERLY HILLS 574 $73,884 $9,858 $221,165 $838,833
CALVERTON PARK 1,293 $158,880 $24,122 $482,931 $728,226
CHARLACK 1,363 $278,405 $19,501 $291,634 $1,009,747
COOL VALLEY 1,196 $169,188 $39,686 $366,763 $1,259,770
EDMUNDSON 834 $318,196 $92,845 $559,465 $1,604,815
MOLINE ACRES 2,442 $317,551 $0 $503,061 $1,619,488
NORMANDY 5,008 $662,900 $101,541 $1,725,753 $4,249,631
NORTHWOODS 4,227 $593,923 $106,349 $690,534 $2,620,992
PINE LAWN 3,275 $380,913 $43,654 $1,841,985 $3,827,753
ST. ANN 13,020 $1,113,313 $360,746 $3,415,671 $9,115,012
VELDA CITY 1,420 $194,213 $115,362 $224,909 $1,042,254
VINITA TERRACE 277 $52,228 $4,173 $121,145 $233,738


MUNICIPALITY POPULATION REVENUE FROM FINES & FEES GENERAL REVENUE TOTAL % OF GENERAL REVENUE FROM FINES & FEES
BALLWIN 30,404 $1,031,778 $17,620,540 5.86%
BEL-NOR 1,499 $84,414 $755,600 11.17%
BEL-RIDGE 2,737 $362,433 $1,481,633 24.46%
BELLA VILLA 729 $371,393 $647,243 57.38%
BELLEFONTAINE 10,860 $685,700 $4,918,310 13.94%
BELLERIVE 188 $71,979 $245,032 29.38%
BERKELEY 8,978 $951,412 $8,680,716 10.96%
BEVERLY HILLS 574 $221,165 $838,833 26.37%
BLACK JACK 6,929 $93,073 $2,621,186 3.55%
BRECKENRIDGE HILLS 4,746 $622,636 $2,160,734 28.82%
BRENTWOOD 8,055 $470,868 $11,780,199 4.00%
BRIDGETON 11,550 $349,145 $12,887,494 2.71%
CALVERTON PARK 1,293 $482,931 $728,226 66.32%
CHAMP 13 $48,757 0.00%
CHARLACK 1,363 $291,634 $1,009,747 28.88%
CHESTERFIELD 47,484 $1,340,143 $21,125,292 6.34%
CLARKSON VALLEY 2,632 $161,604 $881,785 18.33%
CLAYTON 15,939 $672,029 $21,761,741 3.09%
COOL VALLEY 1,196 $366,763 $1,259,770 29.11%
COUNTRY CLUB HILLS 16,541 $220,618 $1,400,359 15.75%
COUNTRY LIFE ACRES 74 $84,041 0.00%
CRESTWOOD 11,912 $250,272 $7,800,717 3.21%
CREVE COEUR 17,833 $1,966,254 $16,365,796 12.01%
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK 470 $222,147 0.00%
DELLWOOD 5,025 $244,694 $3,434,353 7.12%
DES PERES 8,373 $433,576 $9,782,524 4.43%
EDMUNDSON 834 $559,465 $1,604,815 34.86%
ELLISVILE 9,133 $596,932 $5,905,836 10.11%
EUREKA 10,189 $143,936 $4,853,232 2.97%
FENTON 4,022 $421,832 $5,607,923 7.52%
FERGUSON 21,203 $1,832,519 $12,746,894 14.38%
FLORDELL HILLS 822 $116,351 $516,749 22.52%
FLORISSANT 52,158 $2,421,797 $23,120,332 10.47%
FRONTENAC 3,482 $513,790 $5,962,282 8.62%
GLEN ECHO PARK 160 $41,974 0.00%
GLENDALE 5,925 $143,194 $3,746,924 3.82%
GRANTWOOD VILLAGE 863 $7,003 $387,995 1.81%
GREEN PARK 2,622 $1,125,902 0.00%
GREENDALE 651 $40,467 $357,424 11.32%
HANELY HILLS 2,101 $67,326 $635,500 10.59%
HAZELWOOD 25,703 $1,307,572 $23,809,852 5.49%
HILLSDALE 1,478 $224,550 $834,036 26.92%
HUNTLEIGH 334 $136,396 0.00%
JENNINGS 14,712 $436,219 $7,737,693 5.64%
KINLOCH 298 $9,173 $900,778 1.02%
KIRKWOOD 27,540 $528,690 $19,297,564 2.74%
LADUE 8,521 $457,915 $11,775,575 3.89%
LAKESHIRE 1,432 $18,851 $554,181 3.40%
MACKENZIE 134 $48,462 0.00%
MANCHESTER 18,094 $430,901 $8,202,013 5.25%
MAPLEWOOD 8,046 $837,774 $8,844,064 9.47%
MARLBOROUGH 729 $91,461 $575,062 15.90%
MARYLAND HEIGHTS 27,472 $1,745,016 $22,420,540 7.78%
MOLINE ACRES 2,442 $503,061 $1,619,488 31.06%
NORMANDY 5,008 $1,725,753 $4,249,631 40.61%
NORTHWOODS 4,227 $690,534 $2,620,992 26.35%
NORWOOD COURT 959 $182,616 0.00%
OAKLAND 1,381 $88,930 $675,079 13.17%
OLIVETTE 7,737 $292,184 $7,046,302 4.15%
OVERLAND 16,062 $475,840 $8,255,774 5.76%
PACIFIC 7,002 $3,767,395 0.00%
PAGEDALE 3,304 $356,601 $2,016,430 17.68%
PASADENA HILLS 930 $0 $384,979 0.00%
PASADENA PARK 470 $0 $146,446 0.00%
PINE LAWN 3,275 $1,841,985 $3,827,753 48.12%
RICHMOND HEIGHTS 8,603 $809,252 $12,109,281 6.68%
RIVERVIEW 2,856 $105,384 $913,332 11.54%
ROCK HILL 4,635 $628,510 $3,370,845 18.65%
SAINT ANN 13,020 $3,415,671 $9,115,012 37.47%
SAINT JOHN 6,517 $932,313 $3,835,573 24.31%
SAINT LOUIS CITY 319,294 $8,340,407 $430,213,000 1.94%
SHREWSBURY 6,254 $378,706 $5,997,095 6.31%
STL COUNTY 998,954 $5,846,002 $341,291,336 1.71%
SUNSET HILLS 8,496 $404,953 $7,253,769 5.58%
SYCAMORE HILLS 668 $40,126 $174,844 22.95%
TOWN AND COUNTRY 10,815 $1,504,837 $10,040,225 14.99%
TWIN OAKS 392 $572,292 0.00%
UNIVERSITY CITY 35,371 $571,516 $26,917,526 2.12%
UPLANDS PARK 445 $90,935 $386,887 23.50%
VALLEY PARK 6,942 $221,432 $3,290,258 6.73%
VELDA CITY 1,420 $224,909 $1,042,254 21.58%
VELDA VILLAGE HILLS 1,055 $41,497 $420,343 9.87%
VINITA PARK 1,880 $262,231 $2,156,671 12.16%
VINITA TERRACE 277 $121,145 $233,738 51.83%
WARSON WOODS 1,962 $43,911 $1,518,054 2.89%
WEBSTER GROVES 22,995 $1,011,126 $14,955,343 6.76%
WELLSTON 2,313 $342,036 $2,810,091 12.17%
WESTWOOD 278 No Information Received
WILBUR PARK 471 $131,916 0.00%
WILDWOOD 35,517 $615,040 $9,051,444 6.79%
WINCHESTER 1,547 $50,361 $778,189 6.47%
WOODSON TERRACE 4,063 $244,040 $3,706,617 6.58%

While revenue from court fines and fees is not the main source of revenue in every municipality, it is a significant source for many. In 2013, 40 of St. Louis County’s 90 municipalities collected over 10% of their general operating revenue from municipal court fines and fees. Twenty-one of these municipalities in St. Louis County collected over 20% of their general operating revenue from court fines and fees. As the following table notes, those 21 municipalities collecting 20% or more of their revenue from court fines and fees have populations that are 62% black, and 22% of these populations live below the poverty level. These numbers are more than double the St. Louis County average. According to U.S. Census statistics, St. Louis County as a whole is 24% black and has a poverty rate of just under 11%. It is also worthy of note that 20 of these 21 municipalities are located north of Olive Boulevard and within the boundary of I-270.

Municipalities Collecting Over 20% of General Revenue from Municipal Court Fines and Fees
MUNICIPALITY POPULATION % OF GENERAL REVENUE FROM FINES & FEES % OF POPULATION THAT IS BLACK % OF POPULATION THAT IS BELOW POVERTY LINE
CALVERTON PARK 1,293 66.32% 42.23% 23.60%
BELLA VILLA 729 57.38% 1.51% 8.60%
VINITA TERRACE 277 51.83% 72.92% 19.20%
PINE LAWN 3,275 48.12% 96.40% 31.80%
NORMANDY 5,008 40.61% 69.75% 35.40%
SAINT ANN 13,020 37.47% 22.11% 15.10%
EDMUNDSON 834 34.86% 26.38% 19.00%
MOLINE ACRES 2,442 31.06% 92.10% 21.30%
BELLERIVE 188 29.38% 43.09% 0.90%
COOL VALLEY 1,196 29.11% 84.53% 14.00%
CHARLACK 1,363 28.88% 35.44% 13.20%
BRECKENRIDGE HILLS 4,746 28.82% 32.70% 24.50%
HILLSDALE 1,478 26.92% 95.94% 46.60%
BEVERLY HILLS 574 26.37% 92.68% 17.70%
NORTHWOODS 4,227 26.35% 93.94% 25.70%
BEL-RIDGE 2,737 24.46% 83.12% 42.30%
SAINT JOHN 6,517 24.31% 24.29% 17.00%
UPLANDS PARK 445 23.50% 96.40% 17.10%
SYCAMORE HILLS 668 22.95% 12.28% 7.30%
FLORDELL HILLS 822 22.52% 90.75% 36.00%
VELDA CITY 1,420 21.58% 95.42% 18.50%
AVERAGE FOR TOP 21 MUNICIPALITIES 2,536 33% 62% 22%
AVERAGE FOR ALL ST. LOUIS COUNTY 13% 24% 11%

Yet another disturbing fact is that research into municipal courts revealed that only eight of the eighty-one municipal courts did not operate at a profit when the cost of operating the municipal court was compared to the revenue collected from court fines and fees. On average a municipal court in St. Louis County costs $223,149 to operate while bringing in an average of $711,506 in revenue from fines and fees each year, [19] returning an average net revenue of $488,357 annually. [20]

There are even examples of municipalities proposing budgeted increases in revenue from fines and fees, which would indicate plans to increase ordinance enforcement – ticketing – as a means of enhancing municipal budgetary support. Dellwood ’s 2012 budget anticipated an $80,000 increase in revenue from fines and fees between 2011 ($219,893 actual) and 2012 ($300,000 budgeted). A similar increase was predicted in the 2013 budget, which anticipated $400,000 in revenue from fines and fees. [21]

Yet another example of fines and fees being utilized as a municipal revenue stream can be seen in Florissant ’s recent move to increase court fees. Earlier this year, St. Louis County Presiding Judge Maura McShane issued a notice to St. Louis County municipal courts requiring them to comply with the law and a constitutional guarantee to open and public courts. In response, Florissant approved a measure to “collect $10 for each municipal ordinance violation,” with the money generated “to be used to for land, construction, maintenance and upkeep of a municipal courthouse” that can accommodate its docket. [22] It is important to note that Florissant generates over $1.5 million dollars more than it spends on costs to operate its courts. [23] However, the structure and practice of viewing these fines as a revenue stream is so commonplace that the additional fee was approved and implemented.

MUNICIPALITY POPULATION COST TO OPERATE COURTS GROSS REVENUE FROM FINES & FEES NET REVENUE FROM FINES & FEES
BALLWIN 30,404 $190,268 $1,031,778 $841,510
BEL-NOR 1,499 $63,731 $84,414 $20,683
BEL-RIDGE 2,737 $132,818 $362,433 $229,615
BELLA VILLA 729 $87,633 $371,393 $283,760
BELLEFONTAINE 10,860 $110,817 $685,700 $574,883
BELLERIVE 188 $11,500 $71,979 $60,479
BERKELEY 8,978 $166,160 $951,412 $785,252
BEVERLY HILLS 574 No Information Received $221,165 N/A
BLACK JACK 6,929 $63,847 $93,073 $29,226
BRECKENRIDGE HILLS 4,746 $142,792 $622,636 $479,844
BRENTWOOD 8,055 $189,680 $470,868 $281,188
BRIDGETON 11,550 $247,636 $349,145 $101,509
CALVERTON PARK 1,293 $54,816 $482,931 $428,115
CHAMP 13 No Court N/A N/A
CHARLACK 1,363 Need clearer information $291,634 N/A
CHESTERFIELD 47,484 $237,707 $1,340,143 $1,102,436
CLARKSON VALLEY 2,632 $86,307 $161,604 $75,297
CLAYTON 15,939 $272,155 $672,029 $399,874
COOL VALLEY 1,196 $112,143 $366,763 $254,620
COUNTRY CLUB HILLS 16,541 $106,125 $220,618 $114,493
COUNTRY LIFE ACRES 74 None listed N/A N/A
CRESTWOOD 11,912 $101,951 $250,272 $148,321
CREVE COEUR 17,833 $865,272 $1,966,254 $1,100,982
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK 470 None listed N/A N/A
DELLWOOD 5,025 $153,668 $244,694 $91,026
DES PERES 8,373 $278,555 $433,576 $155,021
EDMUNDSON 834 $172,023 $559,465 $387,442
ELLISVILE 9,133 $360,791 $596,932 $236,141
EUREKA 10,189 $180,626 $143,936 -$36,691
FENTON 4,022 $165,790 $421,832 $256,042
FERGUSON 21,203 $313,192 $1,832,519 $1,519,327
FLORDELL HILLS 822 $56,271 $116,351 $60,080
FLORISSANT 52,158 $868,656 $2,421,797 $1,553,141
FRONTENAC 3,482 $146,083 $513,790 $367,707
GLEN ECHO PARK 160 None listed N/A N/A
GLENDALE 5,925 $45,051 $143,194 $98,143
GRANTWOOD VILLAGE 863 $7,950 $7,003 -$947
GREEN PARK 2,622 No Court N/A N/A
GREENDALE 651 $418 $40,467 $40,049
HANELY HILLS 2,101 $125,000 $67,326 -$57,674
HAZELWOOD 25,703 None listed $1,307,572 N/A
HILLSDALE 1,478 $8,000 $224,550 $216,550
HUNTLEIGH 334 Contract with Frontenac, Combined with Fire and EMS Services N/A N/A
JENNINGS 14,712 $245,331 $436,219 $190,888
KINLOCH 298 No information received $9,173 N/A
KIRKWOOD 27,540 $252,938 $528,690 $275,752
LADUE 8,521 None listed $457,915 N/A
LAKESHIRE 1,432 $9,421 $18,851 $9,430
MACKENZIE 134 No information received N/A N/A
MANCHESTER 18,094 $333,794 $430,901 $97,107
MAPLEWOOD 8,046 $255,462 $837,774 $582,312
MARLBOROUGH 729 $91,957 $91,461 -$496
MARYLAND HEIGHTS 27,472 $365,548 $1,745,016 $1,379,468
MOLINE ACRES 2,442 $134,468 $503,061 $368,593
NORMANDY 5,008 $99,513 $1,725,753 $1,626,240
NORTHWOODS 4,227 $230,831 $690,534 $459,703
NORWOOD COURT 959 No court N/A N/A
OAKLAND 1,381 $35,689 $88,930 $53,241
OLIVETTE 7,737 $144,944 $292,184 $147,240
OVERLAND 16,062 $216,863 $475,840 $258,977
PAGEDALE 3,304 $90,758 $356,601 $265,843
PASADENA HILLS 930 $2,300 $0 -$2,300
PASADENA PARK 470 $7,736 $0 -$7,736
PINE LAWN 3,275 $453,125 $1,841,985 $1,388,860
RICHMOND HEIGHTS 8,603 $252,075 $809,252 $557,177
RIVERVIEW 2,856 None listed $105,384 N/A
ROCK HILL 4,635 $144,443 $628,510 $484,067
SAINT ANN 13,020 $332,313 $3,415,671 $3,083,358
SAINT JOHN 6,517 None listed $932,313 N/A
SAINT LOUIS CITY 319,294 $2,227,000 $8,340,407 $6,113,407
SHREWSBURY 6,254 None listed $378,706 N/A
STL COUNTY 998,954 $1,986,994 $5,846,002 $3,859,008
SUNSET HILLS 8,496 $176,807 $404,953 $228,146
SYCAMORE HILLS 668 $9,165 $40,126 $30,961
TOWN AND COUNTRY 10,815 $260,570 $1,504,837 $1,244,267
TWIN OAKS 392 No Court N/A N/A
UNIVERSITY CITY 35,371 $313,511 $571,516 $258,005
UPLANDS PARK 445 $15,219 $90,935 $75,716
VALLEY PARK 6,942 $101,619 $221,432 $119,813
VELDA CITY 1,420 $118,519 $224,909 $106,390
VELDA VILLAGE HILLS 1,055 $50,647 $41,497 -$9,150
VINITA PARK 1,880 $118,002 $262,231 $144,229
VINITA TERRACE 277 $61,676 $121,145 $59,469
WARSON WOODS 1,962 $84,008 $43,911 -$40,098
WEBSTER GROVES 22,995 $197,567 $1,011,126 $813,559
WELLSTON 2,313 No information received $342,036 N/A
WESTWOOD 278 No Court N/A N/A
WILBUR PARK 471 No Court N/A N/A
WILDWOOD 35,517 $231,639 $615,040 $383,401
WINCHESTER 1,547 $11,879 $50,361 $38,482
WOODSON TERRACE 4,063 $53,788 $244,040 $190,252
TOTAL 1,318,610 $15,843,552 $56,920,470 $37,031,022
AVERAGE $223,149 $711,506 $488,357

There is sufficient evidence, both of practice and intent, for the conclusion to be drawn that municipal courts are not being used as instruments of justice and public safety, but rather as revenue generators for municipalities that would otherwise struggle or simply be unable to survive. Furthermore, the fact that the municipalities most reliant on fines and fees for revenue are disproportionately poor lends to the belief that the revenue generated by fines and fees is intended to supplement revenue that would come from property and sales taxes in more affluent areas. However, not all revenue from fines comes from residents of the particular municipality collecting the fines. This is especially true of those municipalities that include parts of I-70, I- 170, and I-270. A motorist driving to the airport from Clayton or from downtown St. Louis may encounter three or four patrol cars with radar from three or more separate municipalities. These highways may be the most over-policed roadways in the state.

Current Oversight

Missouri law does provide for a cap and oversight of court fines and fees in Section 302.341 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Three key elements of this statute are:

  1. Cap of 30% on Fines and Court Fees [24] - If any city, town, village or county receives more than thirty percent of its annual general operating revenue from fines and court costs for traffic violations, including amended charges from any traffic violation...all revenues from such violations in excess of thirty percent of the annual general operating revenue shall be sent to the director of revenue and distributed annually to the schools of the county.
  2. Duty of Municipality or County to Report - An accounting of the percent of annual general operating revenue from fines and court costs for traffic violations, including amended charges from any charged traffic violation, occurring within the city, town, village, or county and charged in the municipal court of that city, town village, or county shall be included in the comprehensive annual financial report submitted to the state auditor...under section 105.145.
  3. Failure to Report Results in Loss of Court Jurisdiction - Any city, town, village, or county which fails to make an accurate or timely report, or to send excess revenues from such violations to the director of the department of revenue by the date on which the report is due to the state auditor shall suffer an immediate loss of jurisdiction of the municipal court...on all traffic-related charges until all requirements of this section are satisfied.

While the framework of 302.341 appears to provide restrictions and oversight, two issues arise: the real-world application of the 30% cap and weak oversight. If all municipalities collected 30% of their general revenue from fines and fees, the cap for the St. Louis City and County region would be $374,811,478. [25] If looking only at municipalities in St. Louis County, the cap would be $143,360,177, meaning that under current state law the municipalities as a whole could double the current amount of revenue brought in from fines and fees.

MUNICIPALITY POPULATION GENERAL REVENUE TOTAL 30% OF GENERAL REVENUE
BALLWIN 30,404 $17,620,540 5286162
BEL-NOR 1,499 $755,600 226680
BEL-RIDGE 2,737 $1,481,633 444489.9
BELLA VILLA 729 $647,243 194172.9
BELLEFONTAINE 10,860 $4,918,310 1475493
BELLERIVE 188 $245,032 73509.735
BERKELEY 8,978 $8,680,716 2604214.8
BEVERLY HILLS 574 $838,833 251649.9
BLACK JACK 6,929 $2,621,186 786355.8
BRECKENRIDGE HILLS 4,746 $2,160,734 648220.2
BRENTWOOD 8,055 $11,780,199 3534059.7
BRIDGETON 11,550 $12,887,494 3866248.2
CALVERTON PARK 1,293 $728,226 218467.8
CHAMP 13 $48,757 14627.1
CHARLACK 1,363 $1,009,747 302924.1
CHESTERFIELD 47,484 $21,125,292 6337587.6
CLARKSON VALLEY 2,632 $881,785 264535.5
CLAYTON 15,939 $21,761,741 6528522.3
COOL VALLEY 1,196 $1,259,770 377931
COUNTRY CLUB HILLS 16,541 $1,400,359 420107.7
COUNTRY LIFE ACRES 74 $84,041 25212.3
CRESTWOOD 11,912 $7,800,717 2340215.1
CREVE COEUR 17,833 $16,365,796 4909738.8
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK 470 $222,147 66644.1
DELLWOOD 5,025 $3,434,353 1030305.9
DES PERES 8,373 $9,782,524 2934757.2
EDMUNDSON 834 $1,604,815 481444.5
ELLISVILE 9,133 $5,905,836 1771750.8
EUREKA 10,189 $4,853,232 1455969.528
FENTON 4,022 $5,607,923 1682376.9
FERGUSON 21,203 $12,746,894 3824068.2
FLORDELL HILLS 822 $516,749 155024.736
FLORISSANT 52,158 $23,120,332 6936099.6
FRONTENAC 3,482 $5,962,282 1788684.6
GLEN ECHO PARK 160 $41,974 12592.308
GLENDALE 5,925 $3,746,924 1124077.2
GRANTWOOD VILLAGE 863 $387,995 116398.5
GREEN PARK 2,622 $1,125,902 337770.6
GREENDALE 651 $357,424 107227.2
HANELY HILLS 2,101 $635,500 190650
HAZELWOOD 25,703 $23,809,852 7142955.6
HILLSDALE 1,478 $834,036 250210.716
HUNTLEIGH 334 $136,396 40918.872
JENNINGS 14,712 $7,737,693 2321307.9
KINLOCH 298 $900,778 270233.331
KIRKWOOD 27,540 $19,297,564 5789269.2
LADUE 8,521 $11,775,575 3532672.5
LAKESHIRE 1,432 $554,181 166254.42
MACKENZIE 134 $48,462 14538.519
MANCHESTER 18,094 $8,202,013 2460603.9
MAPLEWOOD 8,046 $8,844,064 2653219.2
MARLBOROUGH 729 $575,062 172518.6
MARYLAND HEIGHTS 27,472 $22,420,540 6726162
MOLINE ACRES 2,442 $1,619,488 485846.4
NORMANDY 5,008 $4,249,631 1274889.3
NORTHWOODS 4,227 $2,620,992 786297.6
NORWOOD COURT 959 $182,616 54784.8
OAKLAND 1,381 $675,079 202523.7
OLIVETTE 7,737 $7,046,302 2113890.6
OVERLAND 16,062 $8,255,774 2476732.2
PACIFIC 7,002 $3,767,395 1130218.5
PAGEDALE 3,304 $2,016,430 604929
PASADENA HILLS 930 $384,979 115493.7
PASADENA PARK 470 $146,446 43933.8
PINE LAWN 3,275 $3,827,753 1148325.9
RICHMOND HEIGHTS 8,603 $12,109,281 3632784.3
RIVERVIEW 2,856 $913,332 273999.6
ROCK HILL 4,635 $3,370,845 1011253.5
SAINT ANN 13,020 $9,115,012 2734503.6
SAINT JOHN 6,517 $3,835,573 1150671.9
SAINT LOUIS CITY 319,294 $430,213,000 129063900
SHREWSBURY 6,254 $5,997,095 1799128.5
STL COUNTY 998,954 $341,291,336 102387400.8
SUNSET HILLS 8,496 $7,253,769 2176130.7
SYCAMORE HILLS 668 $174,844 52453.2
TOWN AND COUNTRY 10,815 $10,040,225 3012067.5
TWIN OAKS 392 $572,292 171687.6
UNIVERSITY CITY 35,371 $26,917,526 8075257.8
UPLANDS PARK 445 $386,887 116066.1
VALLEY PARK 6,942 $3,290,258 987077.4
VELDA CITY 1,420 $1,042,254 312676.2
VELDA VILLAGE HILLS 1,055 $420,343 126102.9
VINITA PARK 1,880 $2,156,671 647001.3
VINITA TERRACE 277 $233,738 70121.457
WARSON WOODS 1,962 $1,518,054 455416.2
WEBSTER GROVES 22,995 $14,955,343 4486602.9
WELLSTON 2,313 $2,810,091 843027.3
WESTWOOD 278 No Information Received No Information Received
WILBUR PARK 471 $131,916 39574.8
WILDWOOD 35,517 $9,051,444 2715433.2
WINCHESTER 1,547 $778,189 233456.7
WOODSON TERRACE 4,063 $3,706,617 1111985.1
TOTAL 1,318,610 $1,249,371,594 $374,811,478
TOTAL WITHOUT ST. LOUIS CITY AND COUNTY 675,319 $852,678,736 $143,360,177

A suggested potential reform offered during this study was to lower the cap from 30% to 10%. A majority of municipalities in St. Louis County, as well as the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, are already in compliance with this potential reform and seemingly in sound financial health. It appears that a municipality gathering a large amount of revenue from fines and fees is problematic in that it loses the faith and trust of constituents (as documented in a recent white paper issued by the Arch City Defenders), as well as masks underlying financial troubles as indicated by the examples below that demonstrate the replacement of declining property tax revenue with fines and fees. [26]

ST. JOHN 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Assessed Value – Real Property $48,172,540 $48,112,280 $44,342,260 $44,504,180 $40,103,330 $39,728,520 $35,332,530
Assessed Value – Personal Property $12,300,400 $11,794,760 $12,387,753 $10,298,187 $10,393,276 $9,781,183 $9,846,369
Fines and Forfeitures $803,217 $860,146 $949,216 $941,371 $1,092,093 $1,199,022 $1,126,763
FERGUSON 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Assessed Value – Real Property $155,931,428 $197,435,766 $198,084,849 $169,478,310 $169,400,220 $163,979,466 $134,734,400
Assessed Value – Personal Property $43,042,580 $43,673,690 $44,814,332 $42,468,940 $35,806,960 $34,082,970 $33,379,110
Fines and Forfeitures $1,477,985 $1,447,904 $1,391,546 $1,394,729 $1,520,118 $2,227,648 $2,571,190

Additionally, as with the municipal courts themselves, oversight of 302.341 is limited. An inquiry placed with the Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) revealed that the DOR relies on municipalities to self-report any violations of the 30% threshold provided in 302.341. Additional inquiries to the State yielded no documented instances of municipalities that exceeded the 30% threshold self-reporting and turning over the excess revenue to the state for distribution amongst the schools of St. Louis County. This fact, along with information gathered from municipal reports, appears to indicate that several municipalities are in violation of 302.341. A stronger mechanism for oversight must be implemented.

Recently, the Missouri State Auditor’s office announced a new oversight program that will pick “five of the most suspect courts in the state each year” to see if they are in compliance with the requirements of 302.341. [27] While this program will offer needed additional oversight, more is required. With over 450 municipal courts in the state of Missouri, 82 of which are in St. Louis City and County, it may take years to implement reforms system-wide. [28] Oversight must consist of annual reviews and audits to ensure compliance, and stiff penalties (like the loss of municipal court jurisdiction) should remain in place for a defined length of time and not simply until a municipality comes back into compliance. Courts must be held to a higher standard than those they impose in order for the faith of the public and the communities they serve to be restored. Reforming this law and assuring proper compliance would provide critical first steps in that process.

Finally, another reform that could be implemented to eliminate the practice of utilizing fines and fees as a major general revenue source would be to follow the sales tax pool model in St. Louis County. Pooling all of the fines and fees by Missouri judicial circuit to be distributed per capita would eliminate the direct incentive to issue fines and fees for reasons other than the interests of justice and public safety. This reform would also take a step toward restoring trust in those communities where there exists a belief that municipal courts are being utilized solely to generate revenue. [29]

Municipal Court Practices and Procedures

In addition to financial reforms, there are issues that must also be addressed in individual courts. When members of the public visit one of the many municipal courts in St. Louis County, they see a system that caters to defendants who have lawyers. Lawyers' cases typically go first, to accommodate the fact that many lawyers are attending more than one municipal court session in the same evening. Lawyers get "no-points" deals and dismissals for their clients; the unrepresented defendants do not. When the unrepresented citizen goes to court, he or she sees a system that blatantly favors people with money. This is the face of the judiciary as far as the average person is concerned. It is not a pretty face.

Recent reports, as well as actions taken by the Legal Clinic at Saint Louis University Law School, by the non-profit Arch City Defenders, and by a group of municipal court officials led by Judge Frank Vatterott, have highlighted several critical municipal court issues that require reform including:

  • Access to open courts
  • Methods of collecting court fines and fees
  • Notification of rights

Access to open courts

Open and public courts are a fundamental principle that is specifically provided in both Constitutional and State law. Article I Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution explicitly states that “the courts of justice shall be open to every person.” [30] However, a committee established by 21st Circuit Presiding Judge Maura McShane recently found that 37% of municipal courts do not allow children in the courtroom, and 10% of St. Louis County municipal courts allow only the person listed on the docket inside the courtroom.

After requests from the Saint Louis University Law Clinic and the Arch City Defenders that Judge McShane order these courts to be open to the public, she issued a directive to the municipal courts requiring that they adjust their policies for access to courts. Any court that did not comply would be subject to further action by Judge McShane, as well as to potential lawsuits. Judge McShane’s order, issued in June of 2014, along with the reform efforts of a small group of advocates led by Judge Frank Vatterott, resulted in added courts coming into compliance. However, there was pushback and research revealed that as of October of 2014, some courts are still not in compliance with the order or the Constitution. A basic search conducted on October 8th revealed that Bel-Ridge and Berkeley remain noncompliant with the law and Judge McShane’s directive, with both municipalities still emphasizing that children will not be permitted inside the courtroom.

While prohibiting children from entering the courtroom may seem like a minor inconvenience to some, it presents yet another scenario for a minor offense to lead to a life-altering event, as it did for one parent attempting to pay a municipal fine in Hazelwood . After being told that he could not bring his children in the court, a father had them wait in the parking lot with a friend who was also at court. While the father was inside paying the fine, a police officer entered and arrested him for child endangerment, since he left them outside to come pay his fine. [31]

Several courts responded to Judge McShane’s order by stating that they had limited facilities and could not accommodate children and the general public. [32] This argument would be more compelling if not for several facts. First, Missouri statute states that every “municipality shall provide a suitable courtroom in which to hold court.” Second, every municipal court in St. Louis City and County generates a profit except for eight. Third, on average, a municipal court in the St. Louis region brings in $488,357 beyond what it cost to operate, which on average is $223,149.42 Additionally, if municipalities are unable to afford the standards for maintaining constitutionally adequate court divisions, they have the option under Article V, Section 27(16) to prosecute their ordinance violations in associate circuit court divisions of the State of Missouri and retain the revenue from fines (up to the 30 percent of the budget limit per Missouri Statute 302.341.2). [33]

Simple fixes such as adding court sessions or extending hours could be made in order to address the need to make courts open and public. Most municipal courts have 1-2 sessions per month with some averaging over 500 cases per session. By increasing the number of sessions, courts could be opened as required without raising funds through additional fees as Florissant plans to do. [34] A requirement that courts limit their docket size per hour of court session would ensure that courts could remain open and prevent public perception that courts with such large dockets are being utilized solely for the revenue they generate.

Methods of Collecting Court Fines and Fees

The perception that many municipal courts are simply in place to generate revenue has been reinforced by multiple accounts from attorneys, citizens, and reporters that call into question the manner in which municipal court sessions are conducted and the methods utilized to collect fines. Common complaints include inability to pay and judges ordering individuals be locked up until they can gather the money from friends and family. This process in particular has left individuals with minor traffic offenses “feeling violated” according to one account documented in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. However, this is far from an isolated incident. Similar accounts led a group of attorneys at Saint Louis University and the nonprofit Arch City Defenders to advocate for reforms in how fines are imposed and in treatment for failure to pay with regard to those financially unable to do so.

Under Missouri law, it is well established in numerous statutes and the Missouri Supreme Court Rules that municipal judges may alter fines and provide for a payment plan to those unable to pay a fine in full. Rule 37.65 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules provides a municipal judge with the discretion to provide for payment of the fine in installments and an extension to satisfy the fine. In addition 37.65 provides the judge with the ability to require the defendant show cause for an inability to pay. Missouri statute is clear on these matters, as well, with Section 479.240 stating:

"When a fine is assessed for violation of an ordinance, it shall be within the discretion of the judge assessing the fine to provide for the payment of the fine on an installment basis under such terms and conditions as he may deem appropriate."

Additionally, Missouri law states that “in determining the amount and method of payment of a fine, the court shall, insofar as practicable, proportion the fine to burden that payment will impose in view of the financial resources of an individual.” Finally, while not a popular option, collection agencies could be used rather than placing individuals unable to pay in jail. It would also avail these individuals of certain rights, while not causing them to miss work and possibly lose their job while in jail for failure to pay.

Given the discretion that municipal judges hold to adjust fines and provide for alternative methods and schedule of payment, it is difficult to understand the use of jailing to collect fines and fees unless utilized as a matter of last resort and after a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay is held. Those steps are noticeably absent from many accounts provided in both professional and media reports.

A logical reform would be for the Supreme Court of Missouri to follow the suggestions of the Clinical Law Offices at Saint Louis University, whose attorneys in conjunction with attorneys from Arch City Defenders asked that the Court “adopt an amendment to Supreme Court Rule 37.65 (a) and (b),” which would “clarify the obligation of municipal courts to proportion fines to the resources of offenders and the power of the courts to respond in a constitutional manner to non-payment by indigent defendants.” This reform would be seen as an act of good faith towards the community and also provide a solution to non-payment of fines and fees that does not include a citizen being locked up for a traffic violation.

Such reforms would also deter a common practice among those unable to pay fines in full at their court date, which is simply not appearing in court out of fear of being locked up for inability to pay. While judges and attorneys agree that this is a losing strategy, rumors and misunderstanding make this path not uncommon. Unfortunately, it results in the issuance of warrants for the arrest of those failing to appear and places defendants in a more difficult position. Warrants for failing to appear for a basic traffic fine can prevent individuals from being hired or getting access to housing once background checks turn up the warrant.

Two potential reforms could alleviate the negative personal and economic impacts of these warrants being issued. First, a basic list of rights, procedures, and consequences should be listed on the back of every municipal citation issued. This list should also be prominently displayed at the entrance to every court session. This simple step could prevent individuals from making uninformed or misinformed decisions that could significantly impact their lives and the lives of their family.

Second, public defenders should be available at each municipal court session. Given the large-scale profit that many municipalities gain from operating a municipal court, their expenses should include not only a judge, prosecutor and clerk that they hire and pay, but also an attorney that is available to protect the rights of the citizens. A recent reform has proposed the creation of a pro bono organization of attorneys that would volunteer to represent defendants in municipal court. This reform may be a symbolic step in the right direction, but it is unsustainable and impractical. Providing a paid attorney to represent clients offers practical benefits. First, it demonstrates to citizens that their rights are important and that the court does not exist simply to bring in revenue. Second, an attorney could work with a defendant to devise a plan for payment of fines or represent that defendant in challenging the charges. While in Missouri counsel is only required when incarceration is probable as a sentence, providing a public defender would be a true reform with practical implications, such as removing fear that a defendant would be immediately locked up for inability to pay. It would also ensure that all contempt hearings for nonpayment were properly staffed and defendants’ rights were preserved.

Several best practices have been offered by subject matter experts, practitioners, academics, and national research. The implementation of proposed reforms and the enforcement of current constitutional and state laws would help revitalize the trust of the community.

Municipal Judges and Prosecutors

Compensation and Impartiality

According to Missouri state statute, any city, town, or village can make decisions regarding the judge who presides over the municipality and makes decisions regarding all violations. This statute is also explicit in stating that a judge in one municipality is not restricted from being a judge in another municipality. The salaries of all municipal judges are to be paid by the municipality. Similarly, prosecutors are selected, hired, and directly paid by each municipality.

There is a provision in state law prohibiting a municipal judge’s or prosecutor’s compensation from being dependent in any way on caseload or fines. The current structure for hiring and paying municipal court judges and prosecutors leaves itself open to criticism. At the very least, it’s an unsettling idea that a part-time municipal judge and prosecutor would be hired and paid more than $50,000 each in a municipality that is reliant on revenue from fines and fees for a significant portion of its general revenue. This practice contributes to distrust in a system that already draws questions from residents. Further, it perpetuates some citizens’ perception that certain courts exist not to ensure justice and safety, but rather as revenue generators for struggling municipalities. Ultimately, it calls into question the overall integrity of these courts and unduly strains the trust of citizens in their local governments.

Citizens’ faith could be strengthened by distancing the judges and prosecutors from any direct incentives, perceived or actual, to bring in as much revenue as possible. One practice would be to have the presiding judge of the circuit play a role in appointing judges for each municipality. This would place distance between the municipality paying the municipal judge and the person responsible for the judge’s hiring, review, and retention. Another option would be to remove the direct financial incentive by pooling all municipal fines for a judicial circuit, with each municipality receiving a share of the circuit pool.

Yet another benefit of appointing municipal judges at the circuit level would be a larger-scale, circuit-wide vetting and hiring process that could improve diversity among municipal judges via access to a larger pool of candidates. The most current data available for municipal judges revealed that 55 individuals filled 80 municipal judge positions. Of these 55 individuals, only 5 are black, and only 6 are female. As Table 9 below demonstrates, the judiciary in many municipalities does not reflect the demographics of the community. The lack of diversity is not unique to the judiciary in the municipal court. It is present in the prosecutorial pool, as well. Of the 80 prosecutor positions in St. Louis County municipalities, only 7 prosecutors are black, and only 9 are female. As with the judiciary, this can lead to a problem of perception, at the very least. Many prosecutors do not reflect the demographics of their community and the citizens with whom they interact.

This study does not contend that the attorneys serving as judges and prosecutors in these municipalities are biased or unprofessional. However, perception matters greatly in the justice system. The fact that at least 14 municipalities with a majority black population have both a white municipal judge and a white prosecutor, hired by the municipality that stands to gain revenue from the fines, leaves the municipal court system open to criticism. Having a circuit- wide hiring process and pool would allow for an emphasis on diversity and allow the municipal court system to better reflect the community it is designed to serve.

A larger-scale effort to recruit and hire diverse candidates from around the region would also go a long way in addressing the overlap that occurs throughout the municipal court system. As Tables 12 and 13 below demonstrate, there are several types of overlap in the current system, including:

  • Attorneys serving as a prosecutor in a municipality and a judge in a neighboring municipality
  • Attorneys serving as a judge in multiple municipalities
  • Attorneys serving as a prosecutor in multiple municipalities
  • A firm that serves as prosecutor or judge in 10 different municipalities

This crossover creates a system that can result in favor-trading among attorneys, as they appear in front of each other or work in close proximity. Whether this is true in practice, the current structure leaves itself open to criticism and needs to be addressed. In addition to serving as a municipal prosecutor and/or judge, some attorneys also work as defense lawyers. It is understandable that citizens would be skeptical about attorneys pulling this sort of “double duty” within the system. Given the overwhelming oversight issues in the municipal courts, as well as the relatively insular community that appears to be operating the municipal courts in our region, reforms should be adopted.

One possible best practice, utilized in New York, prohibits a part-time judge from practicing law in the county in which his or her court is located. The law further prohibits the partners or 12 associates of the part-time judge from practicing law in a court in which he or she is a judge. New York is not unique in establishing protections against perceived or actual bias. Colorado prohibits a part-time judge from practicing law in “any comparable level courts in the same judicial district as the judge serves.” Thus, a judge can only serve as a part-time judge in one court in a judicial district. Ohio goes even further and bars a part-time judge from practicing law in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court in which the judge serves. Nevada also follows this rule. Finally, the National District Attorneys Association provides in its model rules that “part-time prosecutors should not represent persons in criminal matters in other jurisdictions. This is because of the potential for conflicts with his or her duties as a prosecutor and because of the perception that such representation would decrease his or her dedication to the performance of prosecutorial functions.”

In essence, these rules would bar municipal judges from practicing in the same Missouri judicial circuit in which they serve and also discourage prosecutors from operating on the other side of the aisle. These reforms would provide necessary safeguards in a municipal court system that is insulated and lacks the appropriate staffing for proper oversight.

The current municipal court system should analyze and implement reforms that would address the need to cap the fines and fees collected, protect the rights of the citizens, preserve the integrity of the courts, and restore public confidence in them. It is the goal of this report to foster discussion around potential municipal-court best practices and reforms moving forward.

Community-Based Studies

References

  1. ↑
  2. ↑ http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C479.HTM
  3. ↑ http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A05015.HTM
  4. ↑ http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1909
  5. ↑ http://www.stlouisco.com/YourGovernment/CountyDepartments/StLouisCountyCircuitCourt/Judges/Division2
  6. ↑ MO State Courts Administrator, Table 94 Municipal Division
  7. ↑ 7 MO State Courts Administrator, Table 94 Municipal Division & http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1932
  8. ↑
  9. ↑ http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/law-professionals-discuss-court-fines-fees (audio interview)
  10. ↑ Missouri Constitution Article V Section 4 - http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A05004.HTM
  11. ↑ 1Missouri Supreme Court Rule 37 - http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=831
  12. ↑ MO State Courts Administrator, Table 94 Municipal Division, FY2013 Net Collections/Disbursements. Aggregate of Fines, Clerk/Court Fees, POST Fund Surcharge, CVC Fund Surcharge, LET Fund Surcharge, Dom Violence Shelter Surcharge, and Inmate Security Fund Surcharge Available at: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844 .
  13. ↑ MO State Courts Administrator.
  14. ↑ MO State Courts Administrator; Population figures for United States Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ )
  15. ↑ MO State Courts Administrator; Population figures for United States Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ )
  16. ↑ MO State Courts Administrator; Population figures for United States Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ )
  17. ↑ See Table 4.
  18. ↑ See Table 5.
  19. ↑ Does not include St. Louis City’s municipal court or St. Louis County’s municipal court.
  20. ↑ See municipality data table on Better Together website, http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/files/bettertogether-stl/Dellwood%202013%20Budget.pdf
  21. ↑ City of Ferguson Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2013 p.3
  22. ↑ http://www.flovalleynews.com/florissant-to-collect-10-for-each-municipal-ordinance-violation
  23. ↑ See Table 6.
  24. ↑ The Missouri Constitution, Article IX, section 7 provides that "the clear proceeds of all penalties, forfeitures and fines collected hereafter for any breach of the penal laws of the state, ... shall be distributed annually to the schools of the several counties according to law.” Numerous cases broadly define "penal laws of the state" to suggest that the phrase includes municipal fines; for instance, the Supreme Court in Missouri Gaming Commission v. Missouri Veterans Commission, 951 S.W.2d 611 (MO banc 1997) said penal laws include all fines imposed by public authorities as punishment for offenses against the public. Costs of enforcement, such as police, are not to be deducted from such proceeds; see, e.g., State v. Williams, 872 S.W.2d 669 (MO App. 1994). There is an exception to Article IX, section 7 in Article V, section 27, subsection 16, which allows municipalities that enforce their ordinances in associate circuit court divisions to keep the fines to which they "may be entitled." That "may be entitled” phrase in subsection 16 would seem to authorize the limit of 30 percent of municipal budget in RS MO 302.341.2. There is no exception to the requirement in Article IX, section 7 for municipalities that enforce their ordinances in their own municipal court divisions. If these Constitutional provisions and case law principles apply to ordinance fines, municipalities that operate their own municipal court divisions would be required to turn over all clear proceeds of their fines to the schools. Article V, section 27(16), however, creates an exception to Article IX, section 7 for municipalities that enforce their ordinances in associate circuit court divisions -- they are entitled to keep their fines revenues up to the limit of 30 percent (RS MO section 302.341.2) of the municipal budget, with the rest distributed to the schools of the county as with all other proceeds of fines.
  25. ↑ See Table 7.
  26. ↑
  27. ↑ ; Section 302.341 MO Revised Statutes -
  28. ↑ http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=7418
  29. ↑
  30. ↑ MO Constitution Article I Section 14 -
  31. ↑
  32. ↑
  33. ↑ Missouri Revised Statute 302.341.2 -
  34. ↑ http://www.flovalleynews.com/florissant-to-collect-10-for-each-municipal-ordinance-violation
Retrieved from " http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wiki/index.php?title=Municipal_Courts&oldid=501 "