I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father's debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son's objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.

Any insight is appreciated.

-Matt

[RFRLogo]
Matthew P. Cyran | Shareholder/Director
Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold
525 S. Main, Suite 700
Tulsa, OK 74103
T:  918.585.9211 | F:  918.583.5617
www.rfrlaw.comhttp://www.rfrlaw.com/

****** RFR Internet Email Confidentiality Footer ******
This e-mail message (and any attached files thereto) contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete this message (and any attached files).

If the father shows up for the hearing you cannot forfeit the bond.    The father cannot be held in custody unless an evidentiary hearing is held and it is found that he has the ability to pay but is refusing to pay,  a high burden.

Robert C. Thompson
Cheek & Falcone, PLLC
6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320
Oklahoma City,  Okla.  73118
direct telephone:405-286-9560
direct fax: 405-286-9680
Firm telephone: 405-286-9191
rthompson@cheekfalcone.commailto:rthompson@cheekfalcone.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by legal privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.
Visit us at our website http://www.cheekfalcone.com/

From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Matt P. Cyran
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:16 AM
To: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father's debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son's objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.

Any insight is appreciated.

-Matt

[RFRLogo]
Matthew P. Cyran | Shareholder/Director
Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold
525 S. Main, Suite 700
Tulsa, OK 74103
T:  918.585.9211 | F:  918.583.5617
www.rfrlaw.comhttp://www.rfrlaw.com/

****** RFR Internet Email Confidentiality Footer ******
This e-mail message (and any attached files thereto) contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete this message (and any attached files).

Matt,

This is a little shooting from the hip If his son is not a license bail bondsman under 59 OS. §1301 et seq, it seems it really does not matter where the cash bond came from (son, aunt, uncle, friend) under 11 O.S. § 27-117 C and 27-118 (for a court not of record) the Judge of the Court can proscribe rules for temporary cash bonds, and a cash bond can be forfeited for failure to appear.  I'm not sure the son gets to bargain with the court on the conditions in which he will pay his father's bond.  It may be a rough Thanksgiving between the son and the father if that cash bond gets forfeited, but that will be between the son and the father to work out.  Maybe others will weigh in.

Jeff Bryant

OMAG's COVID-19 Info Page: https://www.omag.org/covid19-faq

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel
jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org

[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.orghttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cksesock%40omag.org%7C7b0af7708d2145459d0008d5d005912d%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C636643644718063768&sdata=O5U4CEM0kJLxSbEQIcdB%2BtRnRqcj9gWhJquY26D8F1o%3D&reserved=0

From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Matt P. Cyran
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:16 AM
To: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father's debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son's objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.

Any insight is appreciated.

-Matt

[RFRLogo]
Matthew P. Cyran | Shareholder/Director
Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold
525 S. Main, Suite 700
Tulsa, OK 74103
T:  918.585.9211 | F:  918.583.5617
www.rfrlaw.comhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfrlaw.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjbryant%40omag.org%7C073a9e976a1e4755e43508d887f7e3a4%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C1%7C637408846051522545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=w0MrY1hz5hVsgEyrsNlen%2Bb1nDFp6nBk4sKdLksZw8Q%3D&reserved=0

****** RFR Internet Email Confidentiality Footer ******
This e-mail message (and any attached files thereto) contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete this message (and any attached files).

I am thinking no on forcing a bond forfeiture. The bond is typically set to ensure appearance. I would also be curious if the bond is always set at the amount of the debt. In that case, it really isn't an appearance bond it's a "you are in jail until you pay" situation. Also, I have typically observed the municipal warrant to be for contempt (not reporting for example) or FTA.

Just my thoughts...

Daniel McClure, J.D., M.P.A.
Deputy General Counsel - OK Municipal League
405-528-7515
201 N.E. 23rd St., OKC, OK, 73105
[Oklahoma Municipal League] <oml.org>        [LinkedIn Profile Tips to Improve Your Personal Brand - Business 2 Community] https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-mcclure-jr-53097920/

From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Matt P. Cyran
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:16 AM
To: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father's debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son's objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.

Any insight is appreciated.

-Matt

[RFRLogo]
Matthew P. Cyran | Shareholder/Director
Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold
525 S. Main, Suite 700
Tulsa, OK 74103
T:  918.585.9211 | F:  918.583.5617
www.rfrlaw.comhttp://www.rfrlaw.com/

****** RFR Internet Email Confidentiality Footer ******
This e-mail message (and any attached files thereto) contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete this message (and any attached files).

All:

Daniel and I talked about this some more on Friday, and Matt’s email solidifies the core of our discussion.  I apologize for “shooting from the hip”.  As with any legal question, it is always helpful to clearly define the question that is being asked before you provide an answer.

My take on the question was not focused on “failure to pay” or “ability to pay”, as certainly the Rule 8 discussions we have had with our Municipal Judges over the last several years would then be implicated and need to be handled accordingly .  Constitutionally, we do not allow debtor prison.

My take on the question was whether an individual can offer to pay with cash for another person’s fines, costs, and fees arising from municipal charges AND set conditions on that payment with the court.  Again, I don’t think a payee, who is not a bail bondsman (if we were talking about bail) gets to post a cash bond for a defendant and in doing so gets to bargain with the court and set conditions on when the cash bond can be forfieted.

However, I may have read too much into the question.  The question was stated as:

“I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father’s debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son’s objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.”

I think all the input from this question has been good, depending on how you read the question.  So, maybe I should have slowed down to make sure I fully understood the question or more accurately stated what my perception of the question asked.

I interpreted the “failure to pay” to be “failure to appear”.  I interpreted “the amount of the debt” to be “the amount of the fines, cost, and fees imposed by the municipal court”.  I understood the “son bonded him out in the amount of his debt” to be “a third person (not a licensed bondsman) providing cash to the defendant to post an appearance bond in the amount of the costs, fines, and fees to secure his presence for a future hearing date”.  The son’s bargaining with the court as a condition for him loaning or providing his money for his father’s use seemed inappropriate.

That is a lot of “reading into the question”, which I probably should have taken a step to clarify before “shooting from the hip”.  With 32 years of law practice, I know better than to assume too much into questions.  I am not being critical of the question, just critical of myself for not seeking additional clarification of what was being asked.  I apologize if I have created confusion in the discussion on this thread.

I did find it interesting regarding the Norman Municipal Court approach shared with us by Rick Knighton.  The Deputy Court clerk appears to have recognized the ambiguity in the question and tried to answer both scenarios:

Seeing as it’s time to pay, it’s not “bond”, it’s fines/costs, and will be receipted as such when we receive it here in the office.  We do not receipt money as bond when it is TTP warrant.

When the money posted is a pre-conviction bond, she recalls occasions when the court has returned the bond to the third-party and given the defendant time to pay.

I hope this adds some clarity to the discussion.  What a great medium to share ideas and discussion.  Thanks OAMA for providing this service and thanks to all of you who chime in when you have chance to do so.

Jeff Bryant

OMAG’s COVID-19 Info Page: https://www.omag.org/covid19-faq

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel
jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org

[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.orghttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cksesock%40omag.org%7C7b0af7708d2145459d0008d5d005912d%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C636643644718063768&sdata=O5U4CEM0kJLxSbEQIcdB%2BtRnRqcj9gWhJquY26D8F1o%3D&reserved=0

From: Matt Love matt.love@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:33 AM
To: Rick Knighton Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov
Cc: Jeff Bryant jbryant@omag.org; Matt P. Cyran mcyran@rfrlaw.com; OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

To echo and expand on what has already been said - classifying the jailing as being for Failure to Pay could likely be Constitutionally problematic. The Equal Protection clause is violated when Government jails a person solely for failing to pay fines/costs due if the Court has not made a finding prior to jailing the person that the failure to pay was willful (i.e. that they had the ability to pay but simply did not do so). See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971), Bearden v. Georgia, 461 US. 660 (1983) and McGee v. City of Oklahoma City, 1988 OK CR 173.

In Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) the Court outlined the procedural requirements to follow to make a determination prior to jailing a person for failure to pay. A hearing should be set with notice given to the Defendant that his ability to pay will be the issue at the hearing. A form or a functional equivalent should be used to elicit information about the Defendant's ability to pay (financial condition). A hearing should then be held on the issue, followed by an express finding by the Court on the Defendant's ability to pay.

Oklahoma has adopted the framework for these ability to pay hearings via Rule 8 (specifically Rule 8.1 to 8.8 - all contained in Chapter 18, Section VIII of Title 22; see also 22 O.S. 983).

What some cities do is preemptively set a Rule 8 hearing as part of their time pay agreement. When someone does not make their payment AND does not show up for the hearing, then they issue a bench warrant. The warrant isn't because of the failure to pay. The warrant is because they did not comply with the terms of their timepay by failing to show up in Court for their Rule 8 hearing when they didn't pay. It allows the warrant to be better styled - instead of "Failure to Pay" it's "Failure to Comply". It also allows the City to be faithful to the Equal Protection case law as well as Rule 8 itself.

What authority does cities have to enforce the Governor's mask mandate.  Can bars be issued tickets?
Ray

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note9.

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeff Bryant via Oama oama@lists.imla.org
Date: 11/16/20 10:58 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: Matt Love matt.love@gmail.com, Rick Knighton Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov, "Matt P. Cyran" mcyran@rfrlaw.com, Jon Miller jonmiller@jem-pc.com, Robert Thompson rthompson@cheekfalcone.com, Daniel@oml.org
Cc: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

All:

Daniel and I talked about this some more on Friday, and Matt’s email solidifies the core of our discussion.  I apologize for “shooting from the hip”.  As with any legal question, it is always helpful to clearly define the question that is being asked before you provide an answer.

My take on the question was not focused on “failure to pay” or “ability to pay”, as certainly the Rule 8 discussions we have had with our Municipal Judges over the last several years would then be implicated and need to be handled accordingly .  Constitutionally, we do not allow debtor prison.

My take on the question was whether an individual can offer to pay with cash for another person’s fines, costs, and fees arising from municipal charges AND set conditions on that payment with the court.  Again, I don’t think a payee, who is not a bail bondsman (if we were talking about bail) gets to post a cash bond for a defendant and in doing so gets to bargain with the court and set conditions on when the cash bond can be forfieted.

However, I may have read too much into the question.  The question was stated as:

“I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father’s debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son’s objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.”

I think all the input from this question has been good, depending on how you read the question.  So, maybe I should have slowed down to make sure I fully understood the question or more accurately stated what my perception of the question asked.

I interpreted the “failure to pay” to be “failure to appear”.  I interpreted “the amount of the debt” to be “the amount of the fines, cost, and fees imposed by the municipal court”.  I understood the “son bonded him out in the amount of his debt” to be “a third person (not a licensed bondsman) providing cash to the defendant to post an appearance bond in the amount of the costs, fines, and fees to secure his presence for a future hearing date”.  The son’s bargaining with the court as a condition for him loaning or providing his money for his father’s use seemed inappropriate.

That is a lot of “reading into the question”, which I probably should have taken a step to clarify before “shooting from the hip”.  With 32 years of law practice, I know better than to assume too much into questions.  I am not being critical of the question, just critical of myself for not seeking additional clarification of what was being asked.  I apologize if I have created confusion in the discussion on this thread.

I did find it interesting regarding the Norman Municipal Court approach shared with us by Rick Knighton.  The Deputy Court clerk appears to have recognized the ambiguity in the question and tried to answer both scenarios:

Seeing as it’s time to pay, it’s not “bond”, it’s fines/costs, and will be receipted as such when we receive it here in the office.  We do not receipt money as bond when it is TTP warrant.

When the money posted is a pre-conviction bond, she recalls occasions when the court has returned the bond to the third-party and given the defendant time to pay.

I hope this adds some clarity to the discussion.  What a great medium to share ideas and discussion.  Thanks OAMA for providing this service and thanks to all of you who chime in when you have chance to do so.

Jeff Bryant

OMAG’s COVID-19 Info Page: https://www.omag.org/covid19-faq

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel
jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org

[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.orghttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cksesock%40omag.org%7C7b0af7708d2145459d0008d5d005912d%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C636643644718063768&sdata=O5U4CEM0kJLxSbEQIcdB%2BtRnRqcj9gWhJquY26D8F1o%3D&reserved=0

From: Matt Love matt.love@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:33 AM
To: Rick Knighton Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov
Cc: Jeff Bryant jbryant@omag.org; Matt P. Cyran mcyran@rfrlaw.com; OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

To echo and expand on what has already been said - classifying the jailing as being for Failure to Pay could likely be Constitutionally problematic. The Equal Protection clause is violated when Government jails a person solely for failing to pay fines/costs due if the Court has not made a finding prior to jailing the person that the failure to pay was willful (i.e. that they had the ability to pay but simply did not do so). See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971), Bearden v. Georgia, 461 US. 660 (1983) and McGee v. City of Oklahoma City, 1988 OK CR 173.

In Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) the Court outlined the procedural requirements to follow to make a determination prior to jailing a person for failure to pay. A hearing should be set with notice given to the Defendant that his ability to pay will be the issue at the hearing. A form or a functional equivalent should be used to elicit information about the Defendant's ability to pay (financial condition). A hearing should then be held on the issue, followed by an express finding by the Court on the Defendant's ability to pay.

Oklahoma has adopted the framework for these ability to pay hearings via Rule 8 (specifically Rule 8.1 to 8.8 - all contained in Chapter 18, Section VIII of Title 22; see also 22 O.S. 983).

What some cities do is preemptively set a Rule 8 hearing as part of their time pay agreement. When someone does not make their payment AND does not show up for the hearing, then they issue a bench warrant. The warrant isn't because of the failure to pay. The warrant is because they did not comply with the terms of their timepay by failing to show up in Court for their Rule 8 hearing when they didn't pay. It allows the warrant to be better styled - instead of "Failure to Pay" it's "Failure to Comply". It also allows the City to be faithful to the Equal Protection case law as well as Rule 8 itself.

Would anyone on here have a Cares Act Affidavit that has to be attached to a forcible entry and detainer matter?  thanking you in advance.
Cathy Ramsey, Paralegal
JAMES J. HODGENS, P.C.
P.O. Box 686
301 W. Main St.
Stroud, OK 74079
918/968-2537

NOTICE: CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: The information in this electronic mail, including any attachments, is sent by or on behalf of an attorney and is intended to be confidential and for the use of the intended recipient only. The information contained in this transmission and any attached documents or previous emails may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or otherwise legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachments hereto is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic mail in error, please notify us immediately by reply and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to a disk. Thank you.

On Monday, November 16, 2020, 03:56:06 PM CST, Ray Vincent <cityattorney@choctawcity.org> wrote:  

#yiv6704644756 #yiv6704644756 _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv6704644756 p.yiv6704644756MsoNormal, #yiv6704644756 li.yiv6704644756MsoNormal, #yiv6704644756 div.yiv6704644756MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6704644756 a:link, #yiv6704644756 span.yiv6704644756MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6704644756 span.yiv6704644756EmailStyle18 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv6704644756 .yiv6704644756MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} _filtered {}#yiv6704644756 div.yiv6704644756WordSection1 {}#yiv6704644756 What authority does cities have to enforce the Governor's mask mandate.  Can bars be issued tickets?Ray

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note9.

-------- Original message --------From: Jeff Bryant via Oama oama@lists.imla.org Date: 11/16/20 10:58 AM (GMT-06:00) To: Matt Love matt.love@gmail.com, Rick Knighton Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov, "Matt P. Cyran" mcyran@rfrlaw.com, Jon Miller jonmiller@jem-pc.com, Robert Thompson rthompson@cheekfalcone.com, Daniel@oml.orgCc: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

All:

Daniel and I talked about this some more on Friday, and Matt’s email solidifies the core of our discussion.  I apologize for “shooting from the hip”.  As with any legal question, it is always helpful to clearly define the question that is being asked before you provide an answer.

My take on the question was not focused on “failure to pay” or “ability to pay”, as certainly the Rule 8 discussions we have had with our Municipal Judges over the last several years would then be implicated and need to be handled accordingly .  Constitutionally, we do not allow debtor prison. 

My take on the question was whether an individual can offer to pay with cash for another person’s fines, costs, and fees arising from municipal charges AND set conditions on that payment with the court.  Again, I don’t think a payee, who is not a bail bondsman (if we were talking about bail) gets to post a cash bond for a defendant and in doing so gets to bargain with the court and set conditions on when the cash bond can be forfieted. 

However, I may have read too much into the question.  The question was stated as:

“I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father’s debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son’s objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.”

I think all the input from this question has been good, depending on how you read the question.  So, maybe I should have slowed down to make sure I fully understood the question or more accurately stated what my perception of the question asked.

I interpreted the “failure to pay” to be “failure to appear”.  I interpreted “the amount of the debt” to be “the amount of the fines, cost, and fees imposed by the municipal court”.  I understood the “son bonded him out in the amount of his debt” to be “a third person (not a licensed bondsman) providing cash to the defendant to post an appearance bond in the amount of the costs, fines, and fees to secure his presence for a future hearing date”.  The son’s bargaining with the court as a condition for him loaning or providing his money for his father’s use seemed inappropriate. 

That is a lot of “reading into the question”, which I probably should have taken a step to clarify before “shooting from the hip”.  With 32 years of law practice, I know better than to assume too much into questions.  I am not being critical of the question, just critical of myself for not seeking additional clarification of what was being asked.  I apologize if I have created confusion in the discussion on this thread. 

I did find it interesting regarding the Norman Municipal Court approach shared with us by Rick Knighton.  The Deputy Court clerk appears to have recognized the ambiguity in the question and tried to answer both scenarios:

Seeing as it’s time to pay, it’s not “bond”, it’s fines/costs, and will be receipted as such when we receive it here in the office.  We do not receipt money as bond when it is TTP warrant.

When the money posted is a pre-conviction bond, she recalls occasions when the court has returned the bond to the third-party and given the defendant time to pay.

I hope this adds some clarity to the discussion.  What a great medium to share ideas and discussion.  Thanks OAMA for providing this service and thanks to all of you who chime in when you have chance to do so.

Jeff Bryant

OMAG’s COVID-19 Info Page:https://www.omag.org/covid19-faq

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel

jbryant@omag.org

3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.org

From: Matt Love matt.love@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:33 AM
To: Rick Knighton Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov
Cc: Jeff Bryant jbryant@omag.org; Matt P. Cyran mcyran@rfrlaw.com; OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

To echo and expand on what has already been said - classifying the jailing as being for Failure to Pay could likely be Constitutionally problematic. The Equal Protection clause is violated when Government jails a person solely for failing to pay fines/costs due if the Court has not made a finding prior to jailing the person that the failure to pay was willful (i.e. that they had the ability to pay but simply did not do so).See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971),Bearden v. Georgia, 461 US. 660 (1983) and McGee v. City of Oklahoma City, 1988 OK CR 173.

In Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) the Court outlined the procedural requirements to follow to make a determination prior to jailing a person for failure to pay. A hearing should be set with notice given to the Defendant that his ability to pay will be the issue at the hearing. A form or a functional equivalent should be used to elicit information about the Defendant's ability to pay (financial condition). A hearing should then be held on the issue, followed by an express finding by the Court on the Defendant's ability to pay. 

Oklahoma has adopted the framework for these ability to pay hearings via Rule 8 (specifically Rule 8.1 to 8.8 - all contained in Chapter 18, Section VIII of Title 22; see also 22 O.S. 983).

What some cities do is preemptively set a Rule 8 hearing as part of their time pay agreement. When someone does not make their payment AND does not show up for the hearing, then they issue a bench warrant. The warrant isn't because of the failure to pay. The warrant is because they did not comply with the terms of their timepay by failing to show up in Court for their Rule 8 hearing when they didn't pay. It allows the warrant to be better styled - instead of "Failure to Pay" it's "Failure to Comply". It also allows the City to be faithful to the Equal Protection case law as well as Rule 8 itself. 

--
Oama mailing list
Oama@lists.imla.org
http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/oama_lists.imla.org

Cathy,
The Affidavit form provided through OSCN can be found here:
https://www.oscn.net/images/opinions/2020-OK-22-verification-of-compliance-cares-act.pdf

Hope this helps.
Jeff Bryant

OMAG’s COVID-19 Info Page: https://www.omag.org/covid19-faq

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel
jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org

[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.orghttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cksesock%40omag.org%7C7b0af7708d2145459d0008d5d005912d%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C636643644718063768&sdata=O5U4CEM0kJLxSbEQIcdB%2BtRnRqcj9gWhJquY26D8F1o%3D&reserved=0

From: Cathy Edwards cedwards.jjhlawoffice@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 4:06 PM
To: Jeff Bryant jbryant@omag.org; Matt Love matt.love@gmail.com; Rick Knighton rick.knighton@normanok.gov; Matt P. Cyran mcyran@rfrlaw.com; Jon Miller jonmiller@jem-pc.com; Robert Thompson rthompson@cheekfalcone.com; Daniel@oml.org; Ray Vincent CityAttorney@choctawcity.org
Cc: OAMA luistserv oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

Would anyone on here have a Cares Act Affidavit that has to be attached to a forcible entry and detainer matter?  thanking you in advance.

Cathy Ramsey, Paralegal
JAMES J. HODGENS, P.C.
P.O. Box 686
301 W. Main St.
Stroud, OK 74079
918/968-2537

NOTICE: CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: The information in this electronic mail, including any attachments, is sent by or on behalf of an attorney and is intended to be confidential and for the use of the intended recipient only. The information contained in this transmission and any attached documents or previous emails may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or otherwise legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachments hereto is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic mail in error, please notify us immediately by reply and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to a disk. Thank you.

On Monday, November 16, 2020, 03:56:06 PM CST, Ray Vincent <cityattorney@choctawcity.orgmailto:cityattorney@choctawcity.org> wrote:

What authority does cities have to enforce the Governor's mask mandate.  Can bars be issued tickets?
Ray

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note9.

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeff Bryant via Oama <oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org>
Date: 11/16/20 10:58 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: Matt Love <matt.love@gmail.commailto:matt.love@gmail.com>, Rick Knighton <Rick.Knighton@normanok.govmailto:Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov>, "Matt P. Cyran" <mcyran@rfrlaw.commailto:mcyran@rfrlaw.com>, Jon Miller <jonmiller@jem-pc.commailto:jonmiller@jem-pc.com>, Robert Thompson <rthompson@cheekfalcone.commailto:rthompson@cheekfalcone.com>, Daniel@oml.orgmailto:Daniel@oml.org
Cc: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.orgmailto:OAMA@lists.imla.org>
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

All:

Daniel and I talked about this some more on Friday, and Matt’s email solidifies the core of our discussion.  I apologize for “shooting from the hip”.  As with any legal question, it is always helpful to clearly define the question that is being asked before you provide an answer.

My take on the question was not focused on “failure to pay” or “ability to pay”, as certainly the Rule 8 discussions we have had with our Municipal Judges over the last several years would then be implicated and need to be handled accordingly .  Constitutionally, we do not allow debtor prison.

My take on the question was whether an individual can offer to pay with cash for another person’s fines, costs, and fees arising from municipal charges AND set conditions on that payment with the court.  Again, I don’t think a payee, who is not a bail bondsman (if we were talking about bail) gets to post a cash bond for a defendant and in doing so gets to bargain with the court and set conditions on when the cash bond can be forfieted.

However, I may have read too much into the question.  The question was stated as:

“I have a situation where a man was arrested on municipal failure to pay warrants.  His son bonded him out in the amount of his debt.  Typically, we would forfeit the bond to apply that money to the debt.  Here, however, the son says he does not want to apply his money to pay his father’s debt.  What are your thoughts about whether or not the City can forfeit that money in light of the son’s objection?  If the City cannot do that, I fear this will be a revolving door.”

I think all the input from this question has been good, depending on how you read the question.  So, maybe I should have slowed down to make sure I fully understood the question or more accurately stated what my perception of the question asked.

I interpreted the “failure to pay” to be “failure to appear”.  I interpreted “the amount of the debt” to be “the amount of the fines, cost, and fees imposed by the municipal court”.  I understood the “son bonded him out in the amount of his debt” to be “a third person (not a licensed bondsman) providing cash to the defendant to post an appearance bond in the amount of the costs, fines, and fees to secure his presence for a future hearing date”.  The son’s bargaining with the court as a condition for him loaning or providing his money for his father’s use seemed inappropriate.

That is a lot of “reading into the question”, which I probably should have taken a step to clarify before “shooting from the hip”.  With 32 years of law practice, I know better than to assume too much into questions.  I am not being critical of the question, just critical of myself for not seeking additional clarification of what was being asked.  I apologize if I have created confusion in the discussion on this thread.

I did find it interesting regarding the Norman Municipal Court approach shared with us by Rick Knighton.  The Deputy Court clerk appears to have recognized the ambiguity in the question and tried to answer both scenarios:

Seeing as it’s time to pay, it’s not “bond”, it’s fines/costs, and will be receipted as such when we receive it here in the office.  We do not receipt money as bond when it is TTP warrant.

When the money posted is a pre-conviction bond, she recalls occasions when the court has returned the bond to the third-party and given the defendant time to pay.

I hope this adds some clarity to the discussion.  What a great medium to share ideas and discussion.  Thanks OAMA for providing this service and thanks to all of you who chime in when you have chance to do so.

Jeff Bryant

OMAG’s COVID-19 Info Page: https://www.omag.org/covid19-faqhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2Fcovid19-faq&data=04%7C01%7Cjbryant%40omag.org%7C6ec5e2e70a9d4609250a08d88a7bcd2a%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C637411611620881259%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DqKkZBtaoBf0IQ7jKK8v0RrcGMz9Hs0S5iL6v9NiJRE%3D&reserved=0

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel

jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org

[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.orghttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjbryant%40omag.org%7C6ec5e2e70a9d4609250a08d88a7bcd2a%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C637411611620891221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oKidXg7i0vV862mrpA7wklbzvhG8b0zUQVN7138nx44%3D&reserved=0

From: Matt Love <matt.love@gmail.commailto:matt.love@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:33 AM
To: Rick Knighton <Rick.Knighton@normanok.govmailto:Rick.Knighton@normanok.gov>
Cc: Jeff Bryant <jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org>; Matt P. Cyran <mcyran@rfrlaw.commailto:mcyran@rfrlaw.com>; OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.orgmailto:OAMA@lists.imla.org>
Subject: Re: [Oama] Failure to Pay Warants

To echo and expand on what has already been said - classifying the jailing as being for Failure to Pay could likely be Constitutionally problematic. The Equal Protection clause is violated when Government jails a person solely for failing to pay fines/costs due if the Court has not made a finding prior to jailing the person that the failure to pay was willful (i.e. that they had the ability to pay but simply did not do so). See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971), Bearden v. Georgia, 461 US. 660 (1983) and McGee v. City of Oklahoma City, 1988 OK CR 173.

In Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) the Court outlined the procedural requirements to follow to make a determination prior to jailing a person for failure to pay. A hearing should be set with notice given to the Defendant that his ability to pay will be the issue at the hearing. A form or a functional equivalent should be used to elicit information about the Defendant's ability to pay (financial condition). A hearing should then be held on the issue, followed by an express finding by the Court on the Defendant's ability to pay.

Oklahoma has adopted the framework for these ability to pay hearings via Rule 8 (specifically Rule 8.1 to 8.8 - all contained in Chapter 18, Section VIII of Title 22; see also 22 O.S. 983).

What some cities do is preemptively set a Rule 8 hearing as part of their time pay agreement. When someone does not make their payment AND does not show up for the hearing, then they issue a bench warrant. The warrant isn't because of the failure to pay. The warrant is because they did not comply with the terms of their timepay by failing to show up in Court for their Rule 8 hearing when they didn't pay. It allows the warrant to be better styled - instead of "Failure to Pay" it's "Failure to Comply". It also allows the City to be faithful to the Equal Protection case law as well as Rule 8 itself.

--
Oama mailing list
Oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:Oama@lists.imla.org
http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/oama_lists.imla.orghttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.imla.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foama_lists.imla.org&data=04%7C01%7Cjbryant%40omag.org%7C6ec5e2e70a9d4609250a08d88a7bcd2a%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C637411611620891221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gpBS0D1enuO1ksU1lgqndCeBJPNmUWhmPt9VElR7f3o%3D&reserved=0