Antioch City Council Rejects Grand Jury Recommendation For “Community Courts”

On Tuesday, by the way of a 4-1 vote, the Antioch City Council rejected the Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommendation of implementing a “Community Court”.

In June, the Grand Jury sent out a report on Community Courts to the entire county and last nights action allowed the Mayor to sign a letter in response to the commendation.

Currently, just Walnut Creek, Concord, Pittsburg and San Ramon conduct community court hearings for people who are arrested for certain misdemeanors in their jurisdictions. Cases include low level crimes such as petty theft, public intoxication, vandalism, minor accidental non-injury vehicle hit and run collisions, and malicious mischief.

According to the Grand Jury, if a person agrees to participate in the community court process, an independent hearing officer hears the case in the city’s police department. The hearing officer has the authority to issue a directive, which may require the participant to pay a fine or restitution, perform community service, and/or attend counseling. Completion of the directive will prevent formal criminal charges from being brought against the participant, but in most cases, does not remove the arrest from the participants record.

Tuesdays action means, the City of Antioch approved a letter which stated the City agreed they do not have a Community Court Program, however, stated the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and is not reasonable.

The letter included some observation from another community court the city observed:

There was no court reporter or other recording mechanism in place to ensure the conversation and interactions with the offender were properly and accurately documented. This could be problematic later if the Offender alleges any failed promises, misrepresentation of facts, or any other wrongdoings.

One of the cases heard involved an Offender who was Spanish speaking only, and the translation was conducted by a bilingual staff person who was not a court recognized interpreter. This, coupled with no recordings of the dialogue, could lead to allegations of misunderstandings and inaccurate statements between the Offender and Hearing Office.

The letter also suggested the following:

To properly identify cases worthy of the Community Court Process, significant staff hours would be required to screen, review, print, and package the necessary documentation. Criminal RAP sheets would nee to be requested for all subjects to ensure they are first time offenders. A Police Manager would need to act as a liaison with Community Court Services, tracking cases assigned to the program, attending hearings, following up on cases not yet assigned a hearing date (for stature of limitation purposes), financial recordation and auditing the entire program.

The city called the Community Court recommendation cost prohibitive and Antioch does not have the police staffing levels to support such a program.

Councilwoman Mary Rocha was torn on the idea saying she was going back and forth but stated he worry was due process and people may not understand they do not have to go through their community court.

“We will bring money into the coffers, would allow us to keep our smaller issues here on our 1-time offenders, but the concern is does that one-time offender understand they do not have to go through our own little court, they go through the DA, that is my concern. Second, you can use a regular interpreter but the fear of the law I wonder if that would cause that due process not to be taken care of and that the person would go through the process not realizing they have a choice,” explained Rocha. “I am in that in-between stage.

Chief Allan Cantando explained his concern with the interpreter highlighting a situation at the Hispanic Coffee with the Cops where a citizen was translating for him.

He said that he went through 4-translators because people kept telling him that the translator was not repeating what he was saying, they were paraphrasing and a miscommunication.

Cantando stated the city would need a translator from the court.

“What I am fearful of is someone is making decisions about their livelihood when it’s unclear if they really understand what they are doing,” said Cantando. “In that, there is no recording mechanism so we could go back and check and I feel very strongly about that, even when you go to traffic court, if the person does not understand English a court appointed translator is provided to them at no charge. I feel that if we are going to do something like that, we would have to have that.”

One of the other issues Chief Cantando highlighted was that the police department was picking the cases to go to the arbitrator. He explained how that could backfire from a public relations standpoint.

“Hypothetically, should this person decide to participate and pay the fine and 3-to-6 months later they commit a more serious violation. I think the public or media is going to come back and say what was this person criminal history,” said Cantando. “Well, they were arrested by Antioch Police and what happened with that, they chose to take it to community court, collect the revenue, and didn’t file the case with the District Attorney’s Office where that person may have been prosecuted. Having been prosecuted, maybe they had not be out to commit the crime in question. I feel that is an issue and would not want to have explain that to the press.”

Chief Cantando noted that the District Attorney can order restitution and penalties.

Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked the Chief about what changes he would need to see for him to support this kind of “Community Court”.

Chief Cantando restated the need to have a recording mechanism in place and a court certified translator. He also wanted more staff to oversee the program and work cases. He noted all these items have costs which quickly accelerate and becomes cost prohibitive.

“It may be a money maker, but we are losing money in the back end. Are we spending $2 to make $1,” said Cantando. “It comes down to is it really worth it in our role to pick the cases or the District Attorneys.”

Antioch City Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock

Mayor Pro Tem Lori Ogorchock stated she liked the idea of a Community Court.

“I’ve talked to some of the other cities and they love the program. Community Court combine punishment and help acquiring offenders to pay back to the community by participating in restoring community projects and they get onsite council and social services,” said Ogorchock. “Number one, they are giving back to the community and two they are reciging social services that they need.”

Ogorchuck continued saying that Community Courts approach helps reduce crime and improves public trust and justice. She also stated that regarding what Chief Cantando is talking about, the courts currently don’t have court reporters, but only at the time of sentencing.

“I think it’s a very viable process and one we need to consider,” said Ogorchock.

Antioch Mayor Wade Harper

Mayor Wade Harper said he does not support the community courts at this time.

“All of the social services are wonderful for people to have, but it puts an extra burden on police. In Antioch right now, I want more traffic officers, I want school resource officers in the schools. I think our resources could be better spent that way than with the community courts,” said Harper.

He also questioned the program saying if it was really for first time offenders and that those with misdemeanors would probably be heard. He highlighted a program he did with juveniles to keep them out of the system and it worked well, but did not like the idea for adults.

“I think with adults, when I sat as a charging detective and I presented the cases to the District Attorney, some people got probation, there went the case and they got court probation where they did not see the District Attorney. Other cases they went to a case. There are things operating already at the District Attorney’s Office but we are transferring burden to the local police department where we can better utilize our resources, “said Harper. “It’s probably a good idea, but I don’t like transferring that burden to the police at this time.”

Councilman Tiscrareno added that the court system is there for a reason.

“If it works for other cities, maybe we can learn from that in the future, but at this particular point I don’t think it really makes sense for our city. I am not willing to support it at this time but willing to monitor it,” said Tiscareno. “Maybe we can address it in the future.”

Mayor Pro Tem Ogorchock suggested that the idea of the Community Court discussion should be tabled to discuss further down the road while the letter tonight could be approved.

Councilwoman Rocha asked about juveniles and how the process would work.

Chief antando noted they have a program working with juveniles, but one of the questions they did not have to respond to was if this kept it off their criminal record.

“Technically, the arrest never goes away, but if they participate in this process and pay a fine, then that does not go on your criminal record. When council says they want to be tough on crime, to me its filing the case with the District Attorney and let the District Attorney file charges. It’s on the persons record whereas they could be given a diversion, probation, yet that actual incident is on their record there is a history recorded,” said Cantando. “I don’t want to make that decision where we decided to fine somebody, and they would have been criminally liable if they committed a second one.”

The Council voted 4-1 with Ogorchock being the dissenting vote. The council left the idea of a Community Court open for future discussion.