August 1, 2019
A 79-year-old Ohio woman
was recently
sentenced to 10 days in jail for feeding stray cats near her home. It’s
just the latest example of how city courts across the country have gone to the
dogs.
Nancy Segura of
Garfield Heights (yes, like the famous cartoon cat) is a cat lover who began
feeding her neighbor’s cats, who were abandoned after the neighbor moved away.
But other neighbors reported her to authorities for violating a local ordinance
that prohibits residents from feeding animals they do not legally own. After
four separate trips to city court for violating the ordinance, Segura had
amassed more than $2,000 in fines, and she was handed the jail sentence. “I
miss my own kitties, they passed away, my husband passed away. I’m lonely,”
Segura told
Cleveland.com. “So the cats and kitties outside help me.”
Segura’s story is a
perfect example of how cities abuse their ability to attach criminal
misdemeanor penalties to ordinance violations and then have them tried in city
courts. But her story’s not an anomaly—it’s the norm. “People think that what
happened to this lady facing jail for feeding cats is some exception to the
rule. It’s not. This is the rule,” says Goldwater Institute National
Investigative Journalist Mark Flatten, who’s the author of a series of special reports
about city court systems. “Cities have the power in Arizona and other
states to put you in jail for up to six months for violating some trivial
ordinance or zoning code, and they do enforce it.”
As Flatten reports in
his City Court series, Arizona and
most other states vest in cities the power to impose criminal misdemeanor
penalties for local ordinance violations. In Arizona, that means if you violate
some local ordinance (as opposed to a state law) you can face up to six months
in jail and $2,500 in fines for each count. Among the “crimes” in city
ordinances that could get you six months in jail in Arizona are spitting on the
sidewalk, failing to return a library book, having tall weeds in your yard, and
smoking in a restricted area.
Cities argue that these
over-the-top ordinances are never enforced and so people shouldn’t be
concerned. But Flatten’s research shows that’s just not true. The Goldwater
Institute’s review of jail bookings found that among the primary charges for
which people were booked into Maricopa County Jail were violating the spitting
ordinance in Mesa, violating various smoking ordinances, and having weeds
taller than six inches.
At least the city court judges in Garfield Heights are elected, meaning
they ultimately have to answer to the people and not the politicians. Perhaps
that explains why they are now scrambling to review Segura’s jail sentence. In
Arizona, defendants do not even have that protection. Instead, judges there are
appointed and retained by the city council and never face voters. So if
you’re charged with a crime and want to fight the charges, you are going up
against the city police officer who arrested you and a city prosecutor handling
your case in front of a city judge who answers only to the city council which
passed the city ordinance. And on top of that, if you are convicted, the city
gets hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines, fees and court costs. If you
are acquitted, the city gets nothing.
“Do you really think
you will get a fair hearing?,” Flatten asks of this situation. “This cavalier
attitude about giving cities the power to criminalize what at worst amounts to
rude behavior is why we end up with totally outsized punishments for minor
violations.”
Segura is currently scheduled
to report to Cuyahoga County Jail on August 11 for her own violation. “I’m sure
people hear about the things that happen downtown in that jail,” Segura’s
son said to local television. “And they are going to let my 79-year-old
mother go there?” As long as city courts are allowed to issue such
punishments—frequently without having to answer to the public for their
actions—the answer for Segura and countless citizens like her is an unfortunate
yes.
