Hilda Brucker

Doraville's municipal court operations depend so heavily on fines and fees generated by traffic and city ordinance violators that its judges have a strong motive to maximize revenues when adjudicating cases, a federal judge in Gainesville ruled Tuesday. 

“Judges have a strong enough motive to maximize those revenues to warrant a reasonable fear of partisan influence in decisions related to ordinance violations and the assessing of criminal penalties,” U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Story of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in a 30-page order rejecting Doraville's motion to dismiss the case.

Story also held that Doraville police and city prosecutors face similar conflicts. “The city's police department and city attorney's office, like the municipal court, are dependent on revenues from fines, fees, and forfeitures, and Doraville's law enforcement personnel, much like its municipal court judges, are subject to the partisan influences of its city council, which is free to defund those offices, should it choose,” Story said.

Attorneys with the Institute of Justice in Washington, D.C., filed the suit last year on behalf of four individuals either convicted of city ordinance violations or facing conviction. The suit contends that Doraville's municipal court is routinely flouting U.S. Supreme Court precedent by operating primarily as a revenue-generating device to keep the city government afloat. 

As a result, the suit contends that city's municipal judges are financially incentivized to convict defendants, and city police and prosecutors have a similar financial incentive to prosecute Doraville residents and passers-through.

The suit claims the Fourteenth Amendment requires that people are entitled to impartial tribunals in civil and criminal proceedings.

Plaintiff Hilda Brucker was fined and placed on probation for six months after she was cited multiple times for chipped paint on the fascia boards of her house, weeds in her backyard, vines on the house, cracked driveway pavement, and ivy on a tree. Plaintiff Jeff Thornton was served with an arrest warrant and fined $1,000 because logs stored in his backyard were not cut in 4x4x8 sections and a screen rested against the side of his house in violation of the city code.

The standard penalty is a fine of up to $1,000 or six months in jail, according to Story's order.  Doraville's municipal court generates more than $3 million annually—from 17-30% of the city's total annual revenue, the order said.

Story said that critical to the plaintiffs' case is their contention that Doraville judges can be hired and fired at will by the city council. “Thus, while a municipal court judge's success undoubtedly depends on a variety of factors, chief among them is the support and good will of the city council,” Story said. “It calls into question those judges' autonomy.”

Story also said that Doraville's city council also “has an obvious incentive to maximize revenue from the municipal court” and sets an annual budgetary target for judges tasked with imposing fines and fees.

“Failure to maintain a strict policy of conviction might make it impossible for the city to balance its budget,” Story said. “In that event, the municipal court would likely suffer too.”

“The Court cannot assume that Doraville is more interested in compliance with its criminal ordinances than it is with collecting fines and fees from those who violate them,” Story continued.

“Doraville therefore has as much to gain (if not more) from citizens violating these ordinances, as it does from everyone adhering to them. … The extent of this profit motive and its potential to distort these officials' judgment is a factual issue that the Court cannot resolve on a motion to dismiss.”

 Additional Reading: 

Doraville Sued Over Claims City Uses Municipal Court to Boost Revenue