MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

California Lawmakers Look to Stop Cities from Billing Citizens Thousands for Their Own Prosecutions

A bill would stop the use of private lawyers to try to force residents to pay massive fees for minor crimes.

MoneyDmitry Rukhlenko / Dreamstime.comA bill passed by the California Assembly would put an end to a practice in which several cities have been contracting with private prosecutors to handle nuisance abatement cases, then billing the impacted citizens thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees.

A $5,600 prosecution fee for keeping chickens illegally on a property and a $31,000 prosecution fee for home improvements built without a permit are just two examples of the eye-popping enforcement techniques that have been happening in California desert cities like Indio and Coachella.

Here's how it worked: The cities set up code enforcement and nuisance abatement laws that called for criminal prosecutions, then contracted out those prosecutions to a law firm named Silver & Wright (this firm actually developed the original concept and pitched it to the cities). The law firm then prosecuted the cases and got defendants to plead guilty, pay a small fine, and agree to fix the problem. A few months later, Silver & Wright billed them for their own prosecutions. The firm's demands for money included threats of liens on their properties if they did not pay. If they attempted to appeal, they were billed even more to cover the firm's costs of fighting the appeal.

These money-mongering tactics were investigated and exposed by journalists at the Desert Sun and subsequently prompted a class action lawsuit filed by the lawyers at the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm. Those lawyers hope to stop this practice and get the money returned to the property owners.

It looks like the days are numbered for this tactic. A bipartisan duo of lawmakers introduced the bill to formally forbid California cities and counties from engaging in this practice. The remarkably short AB2495 adds a single sentence to the state's code that reads, "A city, county, or city and county, including an attorney acting on behalf of a city, county, or city and county, shall not charge a defendant for the costs of investigation, prosecution, or appeal in a criminal case, including, but not limited to, a criminal violation of a local ordinance."

One of the Assembly members sponsoring the law, Republican Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley, said he had been hearing complaints but credited the Desert Sun's reporting for pushing him to introduce the legislation.

The bill unanimously passed the state Assembly and now heads to the Senate. According to a report by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, the bill has no registered opposition.

The cities involved initially defended the practice. But last week, the city manager of Indio reversed position and told the Desert Sun he supported the reform bill.

Photo Credit: Dmitry Rukhlenko / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Juice||

    The law has a clause in it that makes the law firms pay back double everything they fleeced, right?

  • Citizen X||

    A few months later, Silver & Wright billed them for their own prosecutions. The firm's demands for money included threats of liens on their properties if they did not pay. If they attempted to appeal, they were billed even more to cover the firm's costs of fighting the appeal.

    Public/private partnerships do always seem to end up embodying the worst aspects of both, don't they.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    There was an open request for bids, and actual bids? No? Sounds more like yer typical cronyism.

  • Citizen X||

    Like i said.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Most PPP are not nearly so cronytastic.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Citation needed.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    the city manager of Indio reversed position and told the Desert Sun he supported the reform bill.

    I never wanted to do it, y'see? But it's the law so what could I do?

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    There's also this:

    Republican Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley, said he had been hearing complaints but credited the Desert Sun's reporting for pushing him to introduce the legislation.

    Let's not pretend anyone's motivations here are above board. This is changing because of bad publicity, not because anyone thought it was wrong.

  • Citizen X||

    More than likely, nobody thought much about it at all.

  • Chipper Jones||

    Not sure why he admits to having heard complaints. Just say you are shocked, SHOCKED, that this kind of activity is taking place in your district.

  • Juice||

    Republican Chad

    Redundant

  • Robert||

    That's democracy.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The constitution forbids excessive fines.

    -jcr

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    The fine was purely nominal. The price for the bulletprosecution was justified.

  • BYODB||


    One of the Assembly members sponsoring the law, Republican Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley, said he had been hearing complaints but credited the Desert Sun's reporting for pushing him to introduce the legislation.


    But why would California listen to an (R) is an open question since we've been assured they're all Klan members that want to put Mexicans in labor camps...


    /sarc

  • buybuydandavis||

    The State isn't using lawyers to shake down citizens
    Lawyers are using the State to shake down citizens

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "A city, county, or city and county, including an attorney acting on behalf of a city, county, or city and county, shall not charge a defendant for the costs of investigation, prosecution, or appeal in a criminal case, including, but not limited to, a criminal violation of a local ordinance."

    Or else what?

  • TangoDelta||

    Or else they'll be put on paid leave, including overtime, for six whole months while their peers decide which wrist to gently tap as a stern reminder to not do it again.

  • chipper me timbers||

    I'm assuming these victims are also receiving restitution?

  • ||

    What allows private attorneys to prosecute criminal complaints? Is counsel also provided to the defense?

    How are prosecturors allowed to bill for a criminal prosecution? The conflict of interest is blinding in intensity.

    If it is slipped in as part of the guilty plea, how is it not an unconscionable contract on the part of the attorneys? It meets every test for an unconscionable contract: undue influence (threat of prosecution), duress(threat of imprisonment), and unequal bargaining power(they literally wrote the fucking rules).

    What kind of chickenshit judge would allow this unconstitional behavior?

    The article doesn't explain how this scheme works at all.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online