District judge addresses code enforcement issues

Mayor Sanders and City Council Members:

In view of the misinformation that has been stated at a public forum recently, I, along with my staff, have had quite a few inquiries from private citizens throughout the city. I am referring to the following statement made by Councilwoman Barbara Brothers on Oct. 10: ‘I do know with our code enforcement in 36 months they carried 187 fine citations to our judge to get action; she dismissed every one of them.’ The fact that a sitting member of the council who has never inquired of me about code enforcement (CE) cases, asked for dockets or reports from my staff, or simply watched how these cases are handled, would make such a patently false statement is quite alarming and has caused concern from our citizenry.

I am writing to explain the work we do in district court and to provide the correct information. I have personally gone through every code enforcement case since Jan. 1, 2019. I will also add that as of this date, only 38 citations have been turned in to court for 2022. We have only had one since July, and that was the only one that month. The cases are compiled over 116 pages including every appearance, court note, and ultimately each outcome. These are the exact notes that are reflected on every individual court docket corresponding to each case. I do not dismiss cases without the recommendation of the code enforcement officers unless there is an obvious reason, some of which I have listed below. To say otherwise is simply untrue. The role of code enforcement is to gain compliance so that our city will be safe and clean. Compliance is the goal. If Councilwoman Brothers had ever bothered to come to court or requested that I explain how the process works, this letter perhaps might be unnecessary.

I handled 426 new code enforcement citations for the period from Jan. 1, 2019 to date. I am unfamiliar with the term ‘fine citation’. Out of those, approximately 300 were nolle prossed (np) per code enforcement. This is a legal term that allows a case to be refiled if necessary. It is not an outright dismissal of a case. Some cases state that the property is cleaned up per code enforcement (CE). Some note that the homeowner did an excellent job, and the CE officer requests closure. Some state that there should be no more review per CE due to compliance.

Some cases are reviewed for months and some are not. I have 78 cases that have active failure to appear warrants with a cash bond attached which means the defendant did not come to court at some point in the proceedings and will be arrested unless the cash bond is posted. There are 12 cases that resulted in fines and restitution to the city in some instances. There are three cases that are on appeal to circuit court.

There are 13 cases that were np’d without an appearance by either the code enforcement office or the violator which indicates that the violation was cured prior to the court date. There are dismissals for two property owners that died. Chris Brown, the Blytheville City Attorney, and I agreed that might be the proper way to handle those cases. Several cases were np’d due to the property not belonging to the person cited. Several cases were served on the wrong individual.

One property owner was referred to adult protective services due to health and welfare concerns.

One case involved an uncooperative out of state owner so this was np’d in order for the city to file a lien on that property. Several properties were sold to different people, but the new owners cleaned them up which resulted in np’s. One case involved property in a trust and more information was needed as to the responsible party to cite. One case was dismissed per the city attorney after learning that the property had been sold by the state land commissioner.

Code enforcement falls under the control of the police department. The district court does not write code enforcement tickets. If it did, the main thoroughfares that are most visible to our citizens and visitors, the properties that pose a risk to public safety whether it be due to abandonment or overgrowth, and the properties that pose a risk to the inhabitants themselves would be the priority. A triage approach would be the tactic. However, that is not the court’s role.

I have broken the cases down further to show which code enforcement officers requested cases to be closed due to compliance or completion. 146 are per Danny Harris,107 per Jim DeFoe, 41 attributed to our much missed Joe Jacobs, and there are 8 that were written by officers of the BPD for code enforcement violations. All were completed or requested to be closed per code enforcement. I rely on their testimony, their photos and their explanations of progress made.

Please note that fining people who are living paycheck to paycheck, relying on social security or in poor health is not going to clean up our city. I can fine people, wealthy or not. I can bring them back to court if they fail to pay their fines, but what happens to these properties in the meantime? Does the city take them over? Obviously, that is not the answer. The council passes the ordinances, funds the departments, are and has access to these records. Perhaps a few of our members simply got caught up in the excitement of a public forum.

When a person appears on a CE citation, they are asked if they acknowledge the violation, and then they are told what they need to do to come into compliance. Oftentimes, the CE officer will go over photos showing exactly what needs to be done. The city attorney plays an important role in setting review periods and assisting citizens to understand exactly what is required to avoid trial. So cases that are completed and requested to be closed per CE are victories.

The statement made regarding 187 cases being dismissed by district court is not an opinion.

It is inarguably a false statement. I will continue to provide the correct records when called upon by the citizens who simply deserve the truth.

Respectfully,

Shannon Langston

State District Judge