In the 2015 budget, the General Assembly passed a proviso that barred public defenders from representing indigent defendants in municipal court. After the proviso passed, cities and towns were left with only a few options for providing indigent defense services in municipal courts.
A municipality can enter into an agreement with the circuit public defender’s office, which manages the county’s public defenders. If not, the municipality must hire a private attorney to provide indigent defense. While some municipalities have successfully worked out arrangements with their circuit public defenders or private attorneys, others have been unable to agree on appropriate terms.
Why did the change occur?
State law mandates that municipalities collect and send to the state Office of Indigent Defense a 10.56 percent assessment on every fine levied in municipal court. Statewide, municipal courts remit more than $2 million annually for indigent defense.
State law also mandates that counties provide funding for their circuit public defender. Municipal residents contribute to this funding through their county property taxes.
Despite these two funding sources, some of the proviso’s proponents erroneously believe that cities and towns are not contributing to indigent defense expenses across the state. Therefore, the proviso was passed requiring municipalities to provide a third funding source. A funding source that many municipal courts simply do not have.
How do we change the perception?
"The vast majority of municipal courts are either barely breaking even or are actually operating at a deficit," explained Tiger Wells, the Municipal Association’s government affairs liaison. "They can’t afford another mandate to fund a service municipal residents and their courts are already paying for through property taxes and state-required assessments."
Municipal officials must do a better job conveying the true costs of their court systems to legislators and the public. One way is through the annual report that municipal courts must submit to the SC Court Administration.
"Far too often, courts are submitting reports that do not capture the true cost of operating a municipal court," said Wells. Frequently unreported expenses include municipal judge and court staff salaries, expenses (including wages for municipal police and municipal attorneys who act as the court’s prosecuting agents), and any related maintenance or debt service expenses.
The report to Court Administration is due each August. Municipal officials must ensure they report not only revenue accurately but also all appropriate expenditures.