DOCSLIB.ORG

The Roles of Magistrates: Nine Case Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ~-~--~--~--~~ ------­ ~------- The Roles of ) Magistrates: Nine Case Studies \ \ ~--.. .. .. wi. ' ~~~- - - -~. -"- ---- - - ~ --------------------------- c/ THE ROLES OF M'AGISTRATES: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER NINE C~E STUDIES Board Chief Justice of the United States Chairman By Carroll Seron Judge Daniel M. Friedman Chief Judge Howard C. Bratton United States Court ofAppeals United States District Court for the Federal Circuit District ofNew Mexico Judge Arlin M. Adams Judge A. David Mazzone United States Court ofAppeals United States District Court for the Third Circuit District ofMassachusetts '99226 Chief Judge Warren K. Urbom Judge Martin V. B. Bostetter, Jr. u.~. Department of Justice United States District Court United States Bankruptcy Court NatIonal Institute of Justice District ofNebraska Eastern District ofVirginia This document has been reprodu d pers?n or organization originating ifep ?~act~y .as recei~e.d from the Director of the Administrative In thIs document are those of the' ~~n so vIew or opinIons stated Office of the United States Courts represent the official pOSition or POI~~ ors ann do not necessarily Justice. ICles 0 f the National Institute of PermiSSion to reproduce thi a IF' b granted by s 0 JII) Q t61d material has been Director Public Domain A. Leo Levin Federal Judicial Center Deputy Director to the ~ationai Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Charles W. Nihan Further reproduction outside f th sion of the cap) ~It owner. 0 e NCJRS system requires perm is- Division Directors Kenneth C. Crawford William B. Eldridge Continuing Education Research and Training Federal Judicial Center Gordon Bermant Alice L. O'Donnell 1985 Innovations Inter-Judicial Affairs and Systems Development and Information Services This publication is a product of a study undertaken in furtherance \,. of the Center's statutory mission to conduct and stimulate re­ search and development on matters of judicial administration. 1520 H Street, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20005 The analyses, conclusions, and points of view are those of the Telephone 202/633-6011 author. This work has been reviewed by Center staff, and publica­ tion signifies that it is regarded as responsible and valuable. It should be· emphasized, however, that on matters of policy the ~ Center speaks only through its Board. \ ~~~--- --~ --- ------ ~ ~---- -----------~~- Cite as C. Seron, The' Roles of Magistrates: Nine Case Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS (Federal Judicial Center 1985). gr' ,~I'''' • J./~~ ':.;: .I , I;"", NCtJR'. FOREWORD ............................. ~............................................................. IX 1; '-, SUMMARy .............................. ;;. ............ .. ..... 23 ...t985.................... Xl I. INTRODUCTION ......... l.................. ,............................................ 1 . Ae&UiI!SmT"ONS II. A VIEW FROM NINE DISTRICTS ........................................ 5 This chapter describes the factors that informed the selec­ tion of districts for an in-depth case study of the use of magistrates. Based on an earlier study of all full-time mag­ istrates, six fairly distinct configurations for allocating work to magistrates were identified. These configurations and the districts selected are (1) random assignment: East­ ern North Carolina, Oregon, Southern Texas, and North­ ern Georgia; (2) judge-magistrate pairs: Eastern Pennsyl­ vania;' (3) paired de facto: Eastern Kentucky; (4) chief mag­ istrate: Northern California; (5) judge assigns: Eastern Mis­ souri; and (6) one full-time magistrate: Eastern Washing­ ton. Open-ended interviews were conducted with all judges, magistrates, and a cross section of practicing attorneys in each district; in addition, data were collected from each dis­ t trict to analyze. the outcome of magistrates' actions on dis­ 1 positive motions, nondispositive motions, and pretrial con­ f, ferences. ! 1 j: r III. COURT ADMINISTRATION AND THE ROLE OF MAG- ISTRATES.................................................................................... 15 ,t ~- '. An underlying premise of this study is that magistrates' 1: roles, as new judicial officers, must be examined in the sys­ [ temic context of a court's approach to court administration and case nlanagement. This chapter focuses on magis­ trates' inp&t in three areas of court administration: (1) meetings, (2) role of a chief magistrate, and (3) local rule making. IV. PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ....................................... 25 F J C-R-85-.5 r -. \ ; iii Contents Contents Building em the systemic framework of this study, t~is chapter examines selected districts' approaches .to pretflal This chapter focuses on the scope of magistrates' duties as case management, the uniformity of these practices among pretrial officers across the selected districts. Recent judges, and magistrates' roles in this area. !his chapter changes in rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also considers the impact of recent changes m rule 16 of sought to tighten up the discovery process by encouraging the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with specific atten­ firm cutoff dates; though the Advisory Committee's report tion to holding an early scheduling conference to map out did not consider the use of magistrates in this process, pretrial preparation. there is a growing sentiment that such tasks may be dele­ gated effectively to magistrates. This chapter also considers V. MODELS FOR THE USE OF MAGISTRATES: ADDI- the delegation to magistrates of motions that may be dis­ positive of the case (other than Social Security and pris­ TIONAL JUDGE, SPECIALIST, OR TEAM PLAyER? ..... 35 oner cases). Over the course of this study, three approaches to the use of magistrates were identified. Findings d~scl?sed that mag­ IX. THE PRISONER PETITION - SOCIAL SECURITY istrates as new judicial officers of the diStflCt court, may DEBATE: A SPECIALIZED ROLE FOR MAGISTRATES 83 be app;oached as (1) additional jud~es playing a pee: role in the court; (2) specialists developmg an expertise In an Magistrates' section 636(b)(I)(B) duties are often seen as ongoing and demanding ~rea of the d?c~~t; or (3) team synonymous with the preparation of prisoner petitions and players developing discretIOnary responsIbIhty for the pre­ Social Security cases. This chapter focuses on the question trial phases of case processing. of magistrates' handling of these cases, with special consid­ eration of selected districts' management strategies. Four VI. CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED ASSIGN- approaches for handling the cases are discussed: (1) delega­ tion to magistrates for a report and recommendation, MENT PRACTICES: THE PROS AND CONS...................... 47 (2) equal allocation of cases among judges and magistrates, This chaptet explores the way work is assi~r:ed to magis­ (3) development of a questionnaire that law clerks use to trates the factors that informed these decIsIOns, and the prepare cases for the judge's review, and (4) use of law stu­ pros ~nd cons of various options. Building on earlier dents to help review and prepare the cases. themes selected courts are placed in one of two overall groups.' One group of selected courts share a centraliz~d ar­ X. APPEALS OF MAGISTRATES' ACTIONS........................... 93 rangement for assigning work from the clerk'~~ offIce to magistrates. By contrast, a common feature of th~ second This chapter presents an empirical analysis of the outcome group of districts is that assignments are d~centrahzed and of magistrates' actions on dispositive motions, originate from each judge's chamber; vaflous. procedures nondispositive motions, and pretrial conferences for statis­ were identified, including districts where magIstrates .are tical year 1982. paired with a group of judges, where a judge mak~s assIg.n­ ments directly to a magistrate, and where t~e chIef magIs­ XI. SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS ................................................ 111 trate makes assignments at the request of a Judge. APPENDIX A: Questionnaires to Lawyers, District Judges, and VII. CIVIL TRIALS UPON CONSENT: CAN MAGISTRATES Magistrates ....................... ................................................ .......... ......... 115 BE ADDITIONAL JUDGES? ................................................... 59 This chapter examines selected courts' approaches ,to, mag­ APPENDIX B: Tables 30 and 31: Background Data for Lawyem istrates' handling of civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) as \ Interviewed in Selected Districts .................................................... 129 well as the number and types of cases assigned to magis­ trates. An additional question is presented: In light of t~e APPENDIX C: Framework for Analysis of Appeals of Magis- pretrial responsibilities that m~gi~trates ~ay ha?dle, IS trates' Section 636(b) Actions for Statistical Year 1982 .............. 133 there reason to assume, a prIOfl, that mcreasmg the number of section 636(c) assignments is necessarily the best APPENDIX D: Request for Instructions on Handling of Dis­ use of magistrates' time? positive Civil Motions, Eastern District of North Carolina ....... 143 VIII. OTHER FORMAL AND INFORMAL DUTIES: A NEW APPENDIX E: Law Clerk's Report Form for Social Security \ TEAM PLAYER OR A SPECIALIST? .................................... 69 Cases, Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington Division .......... 147 1. iv v 'i -~~-~----~-------~-------- LIST OF TABLES 1. Districts by Assignment Arrangement ............................
Recommended publications
  • The Lawyer As an Officer of the Court--His Duty to the Court in the Administration of Justice Isaac M

    The Lawyer As an Officer of the Court--His Duty to the Court in the Administration of Justice Isaac M

    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 4 | Number 3 Article 1 1926 The Lawyer As an Officer of the Court--His Duty to the Court in the Administration of Justice Isaac M. Meekins Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Isaac M. Meekins, The Lawyer As an Officer ofh t e Court--His Duty to the Court in the Administration of Justice, 4 N.C. L. Rev. 95 (1926). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol4/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. North Carolina Law Review Volume Four June, 1926 Number Three THE LAWYER AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT -HIS DUTY TO THE COURT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE* ISAAC M. MEEKINS JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT My first duty this evening is personal. I hasten to perform that duty by saying frankly that I deeply appreciate the consideration involved in your invitation to address you. I consider the oppor- tunity a distinct honor, and I find it difficult to convey the full measure of my value of your confidence and esteem. When I began to reflect upon the subject you assigned me: "The Lawyer as an Officer of the Court-His Duty to the Court in the Administration of Justice," involuntarily my memory ran.
  • Civil Liability for False Affidavits

    Civil Liability for False Affidavits

    CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE not recklessly disregarded the truth. The AFFIDAVITS purpose of this article is to discuss the liability that a law enforcement officer Bryan R. Lemons may incur in such a situation. Part I of the Acting Division Chief article discusses the mechanisms through which civil rights lawsuits are generally “Reasonable minds frequently may brought against state and federal law differ on the question whether a particular enforcement officers. Part II generally affidavit establishes probable cause,”1 and discusses the concept of “qualified “great deference” is to be given to immunity.” And Part III discusses the magistrate’s determination of the matter.2 requirements for holding a law Generally, a law enforcement officer is not enforcement officer liable for submitting expected to question a probable cause an affidavit with false or misleading determination made by a magistrate information in it. judge.3 Instead, BACKGROUND a magistrate’s determination of probable The primary federal statute under cause is to be given which lawsuits are filed against state and considerable weight and local law enforcement officers for violating a person’s constitutional rights is should be overruled only 5 when the supporting Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This affidavit, read as a whole in statute was directed at state officials who a realistic and common used the authority granted them to deprive sense manner, does not newly freed slaves of constitutional rights. allege specific facts and The purpose of the statute “is to deter state circumstances from which actors from using their authority to deprive the magistrate could individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if reasonably conclude that 6 the items sought to be such deterrence fails.” While section seized are associated with 1983 may be used to sue state actors the crime and located in the acting under color of state law, it may not place indicated.4 be used against the federal government or However, a plaintiff may challenge 5 Title 42 U.S.C.
  • The Lawyer As Officer of the Court

    The Lawyer As Officer of the Court

    THE LAW1VYER AS OFFICER OF COURT THE LAWYER AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. T HE lawyer is both theoretically and actually an officer of the court. This has been recognized in principle throughout the history of the profession. In ancient Rome the advocatms, when called upon by the prctor to assist in the cause of a client, was solemnly admonished "to avoid artifice and circumlocu- tion." 1 The principle was recognized also among practically all of the European nations of the Middle Ages. In 1221 Frederick the Second, of Germany, prescribed the following oath for advo- cates : 2 "We will that the advocates to be appointed, as well in our court as before the justices and bailiffs of the provinces, be- fore entering upon their offices, shall take their corporal oath on the Gospels, that the parties whose cause they have undertaken they will, with all good faith and truth, with- out any tergiversation, succour; nor will they allege anything against their sound conscience: nor will they undertake des- perate causes: and, should they have been induced, by mis- representation and the colouring of the party to undertake a cause which, in the progress of the suit, shall appear to them, in fact or law, unjust, they will forthwith abandon it. Liberty is not to be granted to the abandoned party to have recourse to another advocate. They shall also swear that, in the progress of the .suit, they will not require an addi- tional fee. nor on the part of the suit enter into any com- pact; which oath it shall not be sufficient for them to swear to once only, but they shall renew it every year before the offi- cer of justice.
  • United States V. James Hitselberger

    United States V. James Hitselberger

    Case 1:12-cr-00231-RC Document 8 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal No. 12-0231 RC/DAR JAMES HITSELBERGER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF DETENTION I. INTRODUCTION Defendant is charged by indictment with two counts of unlawful retention of national defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). See Indictment (Document No. 6). The undersigned conducted a detention hearing on October 31, 2012. Upon consideration of the proffers and arguments of counsel during the detention hearing, and the entire record herein, the undersigned ordered Defendant held without bond pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The findings of fact and statement of reasons in support of the Order of Detention follow. II. THE BAIL REFORM ACT The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq. (hereinafter “the Act”), provides, in pertinent part, that if a judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure . the safety of any other person Case 1:12-cr-00231-RC Document 8 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 6 United States v. Hitselberger 2 and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the [defendant] before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). See also United States v. Henry, 935 F. Supp. 24, 25 (D.D.C. 1996) (“If a defendant poses a danger to society, the Court has a sufficient basis upon which to order pretrial detention.”) (citation omitted).
  • Representing Yourself and Your Business in Magistrate Court

    Representing Yourself and Your Business in Magistrate Court

    REPRESENTING YOURSELF AND YOUR BUSINESS IN MAGISTRATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION Business is rife with conflict. To succeed, a business owner must be adept at resolving these disputes quickly and efficiently. Sometimes, more that a simple phone call, refund or apology is needed. Some disputes must be resolved in court. The American civil judicial system is designed to resolve disputes. Although the process works well, it is expensive and time consuming, sometimes taking several years and costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. For many smaller disputes, the time and cost associated with a traditional lawsuit makes litigation in these forums impractical. Mediation or arbitration are sometimes good options, but only if your adversary is of a similar mindset. There is an alternative. Georgia’s Magistrate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, hearing civil claims involving disputes of $15,000 and less. It is often described as “Small Claims Court.” With the right judge, it might be more aptly called a “Court of Common Sense.” The rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed. There is no jury. In the State and Superior Courts of Georgia, a corporation must by law be represented by an attorney. This is not true for Magistrate Court, where a business may be represented by an employee or owner. In short, Magistrate Court provides a forum in which it is often possible to secure justice quickly and inexpensively for smaller disputes. The purpose of this article is to provide a basic roadmap for representing yourself and your business successfully in Magistrate Court. II. PROS AND CONS There are advantages and disadvantages to trying your case in Magistrate Court as opposed to the slower and more expensive State and Superior Courts of Georgia.
  • The Magistrate Court in New Mexico

    The Magistrate Court in New Mexico

    The Magistrate Court In New Mexico Magistrate Courts: There are 41 magistrate courts, 8 circuit (satellite) courts and 66 magistrate judges in the New Mexico state judicial system. These are courts of limited jurisdiction. They may hold jury trials. Magistrate courts will hear the following case types: traffic violations including DWI/DUI; misdemeanors; civil issues from $0-$10,000; felony preliminary hearings; and county and city ordinance violations. The State Magistrate Court System The magistrate court system was adopted by a state constitutional amendment in 1966 following an eight year study of the court system.1 The magistrate court system replaced the justice of the peace courts. Magistrate judges are elected officials who serve a four-year term.2 They operate under the direction and control of the New Mexico Supreme Court, with the Administrative Office of the Courts providing administrative support.3 The magistrate court is a full-time court of limited jurisdiction and has jurisdiction over matters only as provided by law.4 Magistrate courts are not courts of record, which means the court is not required to keep a record of trial proceedings (i.e., a recorded transcript of the trial).5 Parties aggrieved by any judgement of the magistrate court may appeal to district court within fifteen days after the judgement is rendered to request a trial de novo (new trial).6 Case Types Heard in Magistrate Court Traffic Offense: a violation of the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code article 66. Petty Misdemeanor: an offense which carries a possible fine up to $500 and/or up to six months imprisonment.
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
  • State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School

    State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School

    Whittier College From the SelectedWorks of Manoj S. Mate 2014 State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School Available at: https://works.bepress.com/manojmate/4/ COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE Manoj Mate, Ph.D., J.D. Reprinted from Columbia Human Rights Law Review Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 EDITORIAL BOARD 2013–2014 Editor-in-Chief Ashley Starr Kinseth Executive Editor JLM Editor-in-Chief Edward Kim Alejandro Ortega Journal Executive Executive JLM Executive Submissions Editor Production and Managing Editor Nathiya Nagendra Managing Director Katherine Park Alexander Zbrozek Journal Executive JLM Executive Articles Notes Editor Director of Staff and Editor Zahreen Ghaznavi Alumni Development Michelle Luo Dinah Manning Journal Notes and JLM Executive State Submissions Editors Supplements Editor Brian Civale Aretha Chakraborti Max Hirsch Caroline Stover Executive SJLM Editor Eduardo Gonzalez Journal Articles Editors JLM Articles Editors Beatrice Franklin Rachel Burkhart Mickey Hubbard Meagan Burrows Tamara Livshiz David Hirsch Ian MacDougall Mark Singer Sara Nies Alyssa White Sarah Saadoun Heejeong Won Journal Managing JLM Managing Editors Editors JoAnn Kintz Diane Chan Jarrell Mitchell Johanna Hudgens Corinna Provey Benjamin Menker Dina Wegh COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 STAFF EDITORS Mitra Anoushiravani Joseph Guzman Patrick Ryan Nieri Avanessian Whitney Hayes
  • The Strategic Plan for Indiana's Judicial Branch the NEXT STEP

    The Strategic Plan for Indiana's Judicial Branch the NEXT STEP

    THE NEXT STEP TO A NEW WAY FORWARD The Strategic Plan For Indiana’s Judicial Branch JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF INDIANA Board of Directors 2009 ‐ 2010 ex officio Members Randall T. Shepard, Chair John G. Baker Chief Justice of Indiana Chief Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals J. Terrence Cody, President Stephen M. Sims Floyd Circuit Court Allen Superior Court President, Indiana Judges Association President, Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges District Representatives Daniel J. Molter (1) Matthew C. Kincaid (8) Newton Superior Court Boone Superior Court David L. Chidester (1) William J. Hughes (8) Porter Superior Court Hamilton Superior Court Terry C. Shewmaker (2) Carol J. Orbison (8) Elkhart Circuit Court Marion Superior Court Allen N. Wheat (3) Darrin M. Dolehanty (9) Steuben Circuit Court Wayne Superior Court Frances C. Gull (3) Teresa D. Harper (10) Allen Superior Court Monroe Circuit Court Peggy L. Quint Lohorn (4) William E. Vance (11 & 12) Montgomery Superior Court Jackson Circuit Court Thomas R. Lett (5) Wayne S. Trockman (13) Tipton Circuit Court Vanderburgh Superior Court Mary G .Willis (6) Vicki L. Carmichael (14) Henry Circuit Court Clark Superior Court David R. Bolk (7) Vigo Circuit/Superior #3 Court Members at Large Michael G. Gotsch Mark D. Stoner St. Joseph Circuit Court Marion Superior Court Carl A. Heldt Marianne L. Vorhees Vanderburgh Circuit Court Delaware Circuit Court John A. Rader Warren Circuit Court 2 The Next Step to a New Way Forward Contents Summary ...............................................................................................
  • The Important Role of the North Carolina Magistrate

    The Important Role of the North Carolina Magistrate

    THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA MAGISTRATE IMPORTANT STATISTICS As of June 30, 2018 PERSONNEL 674.6 magistrate full-time equivalent (FTE) positions as of June 30, 2017 Magistrates represent approximately 11% of the Judicial Branch workforce. Like other appointed and elected judicial officials, magistrates earn no leave. FUNCTION Magistrates provide an independent and impartial review of complaints brought to the magistrate by law enforcement officers or the general public. Magistrates also provide timely and cost effective resolutions to civil actions up to $10,000 including summary ejectment (eviction) cases for residential and non- residential properties. WORKLOAD The Judicial Branch uses a workload formula to determine the appropriate number of magistrates per county, subject ABOUT THE MAGISTRATE to a minimum quota set by the General A magistrate is an independent judicial officer, recognized by the North Carolina Constitution as an Assembly. officer of the district court. Magistrates take the same oath as judges and are subject to the Code Magistrates are salaried employees who of Judicial Conduct. N.C. Const., Art. IV, §10; N.C.G.S. §§7A-170 and 7A-143. provide services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Magistrates perform numerous duties as officers of the district court in both civil and criminal proceedings. Most people may be familiar with the magistrate’s role in criminal BUDGET For FY 2017 – 18, magistrates account for proceedings, which includes conducting initial appearances, setting conditions of release, about $49.3 million of the Judicial Branch and issuing warrants. On the civil side, magistrates hear small claims cases, enter orders budget, representing 9.23% of the overall for summary ejectment (evictions), determine involuntary commitments, and handle other General Fund appropriations to the responsibilities.
  • Crimes and Criminal Procedure—Appeals Of

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure—Appeals Of

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure—Appeals of Municipal Court and District Magistrate Judgments; Search Warrants; Reporting of Pornographic Materials Seized or Documented as Evidence; Sub. for HB 2017 Sub. for HB 2017 amends provisions of the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure concerning appeals of municipal court and district magistrate judgments, search warrants, and reporting of pornographic materials seized or documented as evidence. Municipal Court and District Magistrate Judgments The bill amends the law concerning appeals to the district court of municipal court judgments and judgments of a district magistrate judge to provide that these appeals can be filed only after the sentence has been imposed. Further, the bill provides no appeal can be taken more than 14 days after the sentence is imposed. Search Warrants Previously, all search warrants were required to be supported by facts sufficient to show probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. The bill allows for a warrant to be issued based on probable cause that a crime is about to be committed and makes other technical amendments applicable to all search warrants. Further, the bill adds language specific to search warrants for tracking devices, allowing a magistrate to issue a search warrant for the installation, maintenance, and use of a tracking device. The warrant authorizes use of the device to track and collect tracking data relating to a person or property for a specified time period, but no more than 30 days from installation. The bill defines “tracking device” and “tracking data.” For good cause shown, the warrant can authorize retrieval of tracking data recorded during the specified time period within a reasonable time after the warrant expires, and the magistrate can authorize one or more extensions of the warrant of no more than 30 days each.
  • Controlling the Police: the Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions

    Controlling the Police: the Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions

    Michigan Law Review Volume 63 Issue 6 1965 Controlling the Police: The Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions Wayne R. LaFave University of Illinois Frank J. Remington University of Wisconsin Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Evidence Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation Wayne R. LaFave & Frank J. Remington, Controlling the Police: The Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions, 63 MICH. L. REV. 987 (1965). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol63/iss6/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTROLLING THE POUCE: THE JUDGE'S ROLE IN MAKING AND REVIEWING LAW ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS Wayne R. LaFave* and Frank ]. Remington** N the administration of criminal justice, the judiciary currently I carries an important responsibility for the fair, effective, and effi­ cient operation of the system. "Plainly, there is no stage of that administration about which judges may say it is not their concem."1 Moreover, as Mr. Justice Brennan recently observed, "the judicial supervisory role, like other aspects of legal regulation, is changing, and the trend certainly is one toward enlargement."2 Because this is so, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the re­ lationship between the judge and the police in the development and implementation of law enforcement policies and practices.