Pretrial Justice Task Force Report to the Kansas Supreme Court November 6, 2020 Pretrial Justice Task Force Report to the Kansas Supreme Court November 6, 2020 © Office of Judicial Administration Kansas Judicial Branch 301 SW 10th Avenue Topeka, KS 66612-1507 Task Force Members Karen Arnold-Burger Task Force Chair Chief Judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals Brenda Stoss Justin Barrett Municipal Judge Criminal Defense Attorney Salina MunicipalCourt1 Barrett Law Firm Salina Colby Mary Mattivi David Harger District Court Judge Criminal Defense Attorney 3rd Judicial District Wise & Reber, LC Shawnee County McPherson Jared Johnson Sal Intagliata District Court Judge Criminal Defense Attorney 28th Judicial District Monnat & Spurrier, Chartered Saline and Ottawa Counties Wichita Wendel Wurst Charles Branson District Court Judge Douglas County District Attorney 25th Judicial District Lawrence Finney, Kearny, Scott, Hamilton, Wichita, and Greeley Counties Lori Bolton Fleming Thomas J. Drees District Court Judge Ellis County Attorney 11th Judicial District Hays Crawford, Labette, and Cherokee Counties Keith Collett Todd Thompson District Magistrate Judge Leavenworth County Attorney 8th Judicial District Leavenworth Dickinson, Marion, Geary, and Morris Counties Robert Sullivan Nancy Dixon Director Judicial Administrator Johnson County Department of Corrections Kansas Judicial Branch Olathe Topeka Anita Peterson District Court Administrator 29th Judicial District Kansas City Table of Contents Creating the Ad Hoc 17. Expand Eligibility Pretrial Justice Task Force ...................................1 for Pretrial Supervision .......................63 Supreme Court Charge ......................................1 18. Additional Funding Members ...........................................................2 for Pretrial Supervision .......................66 Constitutional Amendment ............................67 Guiding Principles ............................................2 19. Explore Amendment to Constitution ..67 Process ..............................................................3 Approaches Considered Introduction ...........................................................5 But Not Part of Recommendations ....................71 The Law ............................................................8 Victim Notification ..........................................71 Methods of Arrest .......................................8 Specialty Courts ..............................................73 Conditions of Release or Bail .....................8 Transportation .................................................75 Electronic Monitoring .....................................75 Recommendations ...............................................15 Amend K.S.A. § 22-2802(10) .........................76 General ...........................................................15 Speedy Trial Clock ..........................................77 1. Education ..............................................15 2. Public Outreach .....................................19 Approaches That Never Resulted 3. Data Collection .....................................21 in a Firm Recommendation to Consider ...........79 Pre-Charging ...................................................23 4. Notice to Appear ...................................23 Conclusion ...........................................................81 5. Mental Health Identification .................27 6. Crisis Intervention Centers ...................29 Acknowledgments ...............................................85 7. Larned State Hospital ............................31 8. Pre-Conviction Treatment .....................33 Endnotes...............................................................87 The Release Decision ......................................36 9. Pretrial Release Decision Procedures ...36 Appendix A ........................................................135 10. Defense Counsel .................................37 11. Pretrial Risk Assessment ....................45 Appendix B ........................................................147 Post-Charging Procedures ...............................51 12. Timely Hearing Procedures .................51 Appendix C ........................................................183 13. Missed Court Appearances .................54 14. Text Message Reminders ....................55 Appendix D ........................................................197 15. Pretrial Supervision .............................57 16. Expand Pretrial Supervision Providers .........................61 Creating the Ad Hoc Pretrial Justice Task Force Former Chief Justice Lawton Nuss of the Kansas Supreme Court speaks to the Ad Hoc Pretrial Justice Task Force at its first meeting. Supreme Court Charge The Kansas Supreme Court entered an Order on November 7, 2018, creating the Ad Hoc Pretrial Due to several high-profile incidents, television Justice Task Force (“Task Force”).3 The Task Force exposés, national surveys, and lawsuits around was charged by the Court to review Kansas pretrial the country that successfully challenged pretrial detention policies and procedures. The Court release as a wealth-based discriminatory practice, also prompted the Task Force to remember the the issue of pretrial release was brought to the important constitutional presumption of innocence forefront of national attention. Of primary concern as well as the impact of pretrial detention on both are individuals detained in jail due solely to the lack the accused and the community. The Court also of resources to post money bond as a condition of reaffirmed its commitment to the belief that no release. In 2013, the Conference of Chief Justices person should be deprived of liberty unnecessarily adopted a resolution endorsing the 2012 Policy or unconstitutionally. Paper on Evidence-Based Pretrial Release published by the Conference of State Court Administrators. The Court specifically asked the Task Force to: The resolution urged court leaders to: 1. Examine current pretrial detention practices [P]romote, collaborate, and accomplish for criminal defendants in the Kansas the adoption of evidence-based assessment district courts. of risk in setting pretrial release conditions and advocate for the presumptive use of 2. Examine methods, other than pretrial nonfinancial release conditions to the detention, currently used in Kansas district greatest degree consistent with evidence- courts to ensure public safety and encourage based assessment of flight risk and threat to the accused’s appearances at court public safety and to victims of crimes.2 proceedings. Pretrial Justice Task Force Report | 1 3. Compare effective pretrial detention preconceived ideas, the Task Force set forth guiding practices and detention alternatives principles to govern its research, deliberations, and identified by other courts with those recommendations. These guiding principles include: currently used in Kansas and use these comparisons to help develop a best practices 1. Find an appropriate balance between model for Kansas district courts. a defendant’s liberty interests and the presumption of innocence versus the 4. Identify any statutory impediments risk of flight and public safety. Avoiding to implementing any Task Force unnecessary pretrial incarceration must be recommendation. done in a way that maintains Kansans’ faith in their justice system. 5. Identify any issues that may require further research, data compilation, or both, before a 2. Seek out all sides of an issue, examine the recommendation can be made to the Court. issue, and confront the pros and cons with an open mind. The varied backgrounds and 6. Identify and prioritize topics that the Office experiences of Task Force members along of Judicial Administration can include with the input of stakeholders throughout in training for Kansas trial court judges the process ensured that all viewpoints were in Kansas on best practices for pretrial heard and considered by the Task Force. detention procedures and policies, and alternatives to pretrial detention. 3. Encourage input from stakeholders. This was extremely important to the Task Force The Task Force was also directed to seek and because members recognized that their daily consider input from various stakeholders in Kansas exposure to the Kansas justice system gave and to prepare a written report of findings and them a perspective different from those with recommendations for the Kansas Supreme Court.4 other experiences. The faith of all Kansans in their justice system was important to the Task Force as they did their work. To Members foster open discussion of the issues facing the group, the Chair reached out personally Task Force members were selected based upon to various stakeholder groups and asked their varied positions within the Kansas judicial for their input throughout the process. The system and include district court and magistrate Chair also authorized creating a webpage judges, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, located at www.kscourts.org/About-the- and members of the court administration system. Courts/Court-Administration/Court- Geographic diversity was also a factor that was Initiatives/Pretrial-Justice-Task-Force. The considered by the Court. The Task Force size webpage has links to presentations made by was limited so that it could work more efficiently speakers to the Task Force as well as reports and its members were selected because they had of meetings and other resources reviewed extensive knowledge of the system. The