What determines whether a person gets a public defender?

[thirdname]

The Miranda warning says, quoting from Wikipedia, "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you." What does that mean exactly? Lawyers are expensive. I don't most people people who aren't at least upper-middle class can "afford" a lawyer for any substantial sort of trial, if by "afford" you mean it won't hurt them financially.

What are the standards? Is it only if a person doesn't have the money at all that they get a public defender? Would a person be denied a public defender if it meant they had to sell their house in order to pay an attorney? Quit college, or spend the kids' college funds, or a retirement fund?

Are there some standards relating to a person's finances alone, or does it depend on how much the defense is going to cost? (ie, some person might be able to afford a defense on a simple assault charge, but not for a high-profile murder case.)

[Thalion]

In Washington state, you have to be below the recognized poverty level. I deal with municipal court, where they are pretty lax about this. The defendant fills out a form, documenting their income and expenses. Non-cash assets don't seem to be considered (so it wouldn't matter if you own your house, so long as your income is low enough). The judge reviews it and decides if they qualify. If they do, the public defender is appointed.

Except in rare occasions (such as when we know the defendant is lying about their assets), the judge accepts the form without an investigation. If it is determined later that you could have paid for your own lawyer, the court may order you to repay some or all of the public defender's fees.

[vinniepaz]

I am also in Washington State. I don't know for real, but two pieces of anecdotal evidence:

a. My room mate got an MIP and possession of marijuana the other week. They weren't going to give him a public defender until he asked, then they just gave him the number of the public defenders office. As far as I know, they made no inquiries as to his income or financial state.

b. my other room mate got into some more serious trouble last year: felony possession w/ intent to traffick. Similarly, no one made an attempt to help him out or inform him that he could get a lawyer (beyond his Miranda warning) but he too asked and received.

So to summarize, in my experience in the State of Washington, the determining factor in public defender assignment is whether or not the defendant requests one.

Check out Gideon v. Florida (??), the landmark Supreme Court case in this area/

The Constitution states that any person accused of a crime has the legal right to counsel. End of sentence. The interpretation is whether or nor anyone is entitled to a free one or only poor people, in the Gideon case the defendant being poor was specified.

This is unclear because I'm not too sure about how this is actually applied. I'm not a lawyer (yet)

[Antinor01]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

Check out Gideon v. Florida (??), the landmark Supreme Court case in this area

The Supreme Court ruled that any person accused of a crime has the legal right to counsel. End of sentence. The interpretation is whether or nor anyone is entitled to a free one or only poor people, in the Gideon case the defendant being poor was specified.

Gideon v. Wainwright.

[Shodan]

A possibly related tangent -

If I were arrested, I wouldn't have the first idea on how to find a lawyer. But I don't want to bankrupt myself paying my legal fees. Do the police or the court recommend people who are cheap? How would it work out if I asked for a lawyer, and then paid the public defender out of my own pocket at the same rate?

Regards,
Shodan

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Interesting. I always assumed that anyone could get a public defender if they chose not to hire a private lawyer.

But then, I can't imagine wanting a public defender if I could afford a private lawyer. It's not that I think they're all bad lawyers (although I've heard some horror stories), it's just that they're generally horribly overworked.

[UncleRojelio]

Originally Posted by Shodan

If I were arrested, I wouldn't have the first idea on how to find a lawyer.

Ask your public defender to recommend someone?

[PoorYorick]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

a. My room mate got an MIP and possession of marijuana the other week. They weren't going to give him a public defender until he asked, then they just gave him the number of the public defenders office. As far as I know, they made no inquiries as to his income or financial state.

b. my other room mate got into some more serious trouble last year: felony possession w/ intent to traffick. Similarly, no one made an attempt to help him out or inform him that he could get a lawyer (beyond his Miranda warning) but he too asked and received.

I just gotta say, yours sounds like a very interesting house.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Shodan

If I were arrested, I wouldn't have the first idea on how to find a lawyer.

If you are in criminal court in a large enough city, all you'd really have to do is call out "I need a lawy--" and several will race to stuff their business cards in your mouth.

More generally, most state or county bar associations will have a referral service, and there's always the yellow pages. The police and the court will not provide recommendations (although your bail bondsman might).

[ZipperJJ]

My roommate got a DUI a month ago (we're in Ohio).

He had to go to court and he was given a sheet to fill out asking about the "household's" income and expenses. The clerk told him they needed MY financial info too, even tho at the time we weren't even roommates he was "Guy who gets to stay in my basement for now because I am too nice to throw him out on the street." We're not related nor were we in any way in a relationship. I honestly barely knew him.

Our mutual friend was with him and he pitched a bit of a fit because he knew I'd be pissed about this, and having my financials on there would keep him from getting a public defender if they considered my income as his "household."

Anyway, the mutual friend called some lawyer friends and got it confirmed that I didn't need to put my stuff on there.

I helped him fill out the form - they wanted all his income and expense info, itemized (rent, groceries, fuel, entertainment) on this IRS-like form. He got his public defender indeed.

And, yes, it totally felt like I was in Alice's Restaurant.

[Bricker]

In Virginia there are three possible methods by which you may be found eligible for a public defender (or for court-appointed counsel).

If you receive state or federal public assistance, such as food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid, or SSI, then no further determination needs to be made. If not, then the accused must complete a financial worksheet, listing net income, financial assets, and unusual expenses (medical care, care for extended family, etc) and the court may determine that sufficient cause exists for public defense. Finally, there's the "catch-all" exceptional circumstances, where the judge may, in the interests of justice, assign an accused defense counsel.

[flight]

Practical experience from Virginia. While in traffic court (got off scot free thank you), some was up before the judge having their arraignment (I think). Judge asked if he needed a public defender and the guy said he did. The court clerk then asked him a bunch of financial questions right there, spent a minute or two doing math, and then pronounced him ineligible. I have no idea if this is only how its done in traffic court, or only in this area, but there you go.

Oh, the reason a lawyer was being considered at all was because the charge had potential jail time associated with it.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

But then, I can't imagine wanting a public defender if I could afford a private lawyer. It's not that I think they're all bad lawyers (although I've heard some horror stories), it's just that they're generally horribly overworked.

I thought that so-called public defenders were private lawyers that were assigned by the court. Just as we have an obligation to serve as a juror, practicing lawyers have an obligation to serve as public defenders. No?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

I thought that so-called public defenders were private lawyers that were assigned by the court. Just as we have an obligation to serve as a juror, practicing lawyers have an obligation to serve as public defenders. No?

Correct. Sorta.

In Virginia, most populous counties have a public defenders office: a staff of salaried criminal defense lawyers who are assigned indigent defendants from that county. In counties where there is no public defender's office, or in cases where the PD's office has a conflict, the judge may assign counsel. Typically, he has a list of lawyers who either are essentially willing to work occasionally virtually pro bono (the difference between their usual billing rate and the mandated pay for court-appointed cases is usually quite large) or who devote most or all of their time to working cases like these, in essence "free lance" public defenders.

But no -- the judge doesn't put all the practicing attorneys in the state into a hat and draw a name, akin to the imposition of jury duty on the public.

[Elendil's Heir]

In my Cleveland-area court, there is a large and very capable (although overworked) taxpayer-funded public defender's office. If you're charged with a crime for which you could go to jail if convicted, you'll be asked at your arraignment if you can afford your own lawyer. If you say "no" and are at or below the Federal poverty level, you qualify, and the PD will be appointed by the judge or magistrate. You have to fill out a form disclosing your financial situation. As of a change in Ohio law two years ago, you must also pay a nonwaivable $25 application fee. There is very little, if any, investigation of how wealthy you really may be, and APDs have been known to skeptically observe that some of their clients drive nice cars, have non-cheap jewelry and are quite well-dressed.

Once the PD has been appointed, it's up to you to go in and meet with an APD during regular office hours, and tell him or her about your case. You can't just show up back in court, weeks after the PD has been appointed, and expect him or her to learn about your case on the fly and represent you (esp. at trial) unless it's a very simple case. The APDs rotate regularly through each of our courtrooms, both county and muni, so they get lots of litigation experience. In my experience, they're smart, skillful and passionate about their work, although the older ones tend to get jaded and more than a little cynical. The average APD is considerably better than the average private defense lawyer, IMHO and YMMV.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

Interesting. I always assumed that anyone could get a public defender if they chose not to hire a private lawyer.

But then, I can't imagine wanting a public defender if I could afford a private lawyer. It's not that I think they're all bad lawyers (although I've heard some horror stories), it's just that they're generally horribly overworked.

True, but it's worth pointing out that many public defenders aren't just "not bad" - they're genuinely quite good. The DC Public Defender's Service, for example, is widely regarded as one of the best in the country, and newly minted attorneys of an idealistic bent fight *hard* to get jobs - it's very competitive.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

You can't just show up back in court, weeks after the PD has been appointed, and expect him or her to learn about your case on the fly ...

This would have been news to about 90% of my clients.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

I am also in Washington State. I don't know for real, but two pieces of anecdotal evidence:

a. My room mate got an MIP and possession of marijuana the other week. They weren't going to give him a public defender until he asked, then they just gave him the number of the public defenders office. As far as I know, they made no inquiries as to his income or financial state.

b. my other room mate got into some more serious trouble last year: felony possession w/ intent to traffick. Similarly, no one made an attempt to help him out or inform him that he could get a lawyer (beyond his Miranda warning) but he too asked and received.

Dude, you need a better screening system for roomies!

[Moirai]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

a. My room mate got an MIP and possession of marijuana the other week. They weren't going to give him a public defender until he asked, then they just gave him the number of the public defenders office. As far as I know, they made no inquiries as to his income or financial state.

b. my other room mate got into some more serious trouble last year: felony possession w/ intent to traffick. Similarly, no one made an attempt to help him out or inform him that he could get a lawyer (beyond his Miranda warning) but he too asked and received.

SNIP

This is unclear because I'm not too sure about how this is actually applied. I'm not a lawyer (yet)

You might want to get your own place... The bar tends to take the ethics portion of the application rather seriously, at least in CA, and the next time they get busted, they might say it was your shit in the apartment.

[Moirai]

When hubby was a DA, there were lots of "true believers" in the public defender's office. He actually applied there as well, but more people wanted those jobs than did the DA jobs, I guess!

They worked their asses off, though, and burn out was high. Then again, it was just about the worst county in CA crime-wise, so...

And this-

If you are in criminal court in a large enough city, all you'd really have to do is call out "I need a lawy--" and several will race to stuff their business cards in your mouth.

ain't far off the mark, although it's unnecessary to have your card handy. At the downtown courthouse in Santa Ana, CA, if you are wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, you will be stopped at least half a dozen times by people who showed up for a court appearance and decided that NOW would be a good time to get a lawyer. Hubby didn't mind- if it was something easy (possession, DUI, reckless), he'd just send them over to the ATM machine and if they came back with at least $200-300, he might represent them.

[Randy Seltzer]

Originally Posted by riker1384

The Miranda warning says, quoting from Wikipedia, "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you." What does that mean exactly?

Originally Posted by Antinor01

Gideon v. Wainwright.

This is actually three different questions.
1) What does the Miranda warning about counsel mean?
2) Who is "indigent" for the purposes of a state-subsidized lawyer, and
3) What actually does guarantee you counsel for your criminal defense?

1) If you're arrested, and the officer reads you the Miranda warnings, and you ask for an attorney, you do not necessarily get one right then. Miranda isn't there to guarantee you a lawyer, but rather to guarantee you your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. Counterintuitive, I know. If you ask for a lawyer, what will (should) happen is that the officers simply stop questioning you, and can't (shouldn't) start again until they've provided you with one. Which might be days later. In this context, your Miranda rights have not been violated until a) you ask for a lawyer, b) you are denied one, c) the police (in a "coercive police environment") ask you questions intended to elicit incriminating statements, d)you make such a statement, and finally, e) the prosecution attempts to enter that statement at trial. It doesn't get you a lawyer: it just makes them stop asking you questions.

2) I have no idea. I assume it's jurisdictional, and the others in the thread have answered that pretty nicely.

3) The case you're really looking for is Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964). Basically, it holds that evidence from pretrial procedures (lineups, interrogations, etc) performed without an attorney (or a valid waiver of your rights) is inadmissible in court. It's a 6th Amendment case. Your Massiah rights begin when you are indicted - not when you are arrested. Gideon v. Wainright, on the other hand, guarantees you counsel at trial.

[vinniepaz]

Originally Posted by PoorYorick

I just gotta say, yours sounds like a very interesting house.

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Dude, you need a better screening system for roomies!

While I appreciate that both of these comments were made in jest, I have to wonder where you guys grew up/live. I can count on one hand the number of my friends that don't have some sort of criminal records. Will bar associations truly deny entrance because of an MIP charge or a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge?

[Hank Beecher]

I was in municipal court recently and when the judge told a young woman that she could go to jail for her DUI and asked if she had a lawyer she said "no I need a public defender". The judge then said "why do you need a public defender, don't you have a job?". She said "no I don't". He asked her why not and she said it was because she was in school. The judge got upset and lectured her very sternly, telling her that it was her choice to go to school instead of getting a job and that it was not the tax payers responsibility to pay for her legal fees, and suggested she quickly get a job in order to pay her legal fees. This was in Kansas.

It seemed strange to me that he had that level of discretion.

[Eva Luna]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

While I appreciate that both of these comments were made in jest, I have to wonder where you guys grew up/live. I can count on one hand the number of my friends that don't have some sort of criminal records. Will bar associations truly deny entrance because of an MIP charge or a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge?

I've had co-workers who were advised that they'd better pay off all their parking tickets, let alone deal with drug possession charges, if they wanted to be admitted to the bar. I don't know all the details (I'm not a lawyer), but why risk it?

[Fear Itself]

It should be noted that, in some jurisdictions, if a court appointed attorney negotiates a plea agreement and you plead guilty, you can be charged by the state for some of the attorney's services. In other words, the guilty do not have legal rights which a worth defending under Miranda, even if they are indigent.

[Moirai]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

While I appreciate that both of these comments were made in jest, I have to wonder where you guys grew up/live. I can count on one hand the number of my friends that don't have some sort of criminal records. Will bar associations truly deny entrance because of an MIP charge or a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge?

Yes. They fall under the heading of "offences of moral turpitude" and can be cause for denial. Read up on it, now.

Of course, it's not your roommates' offences I was really pointing to. I would be more worried about them being busted at home, and you get roped into the charge because nobody will admit the shit is theirs.

Not that it's any of my business, but do you have a criminal record? Or a serious moving violation (reckless, exhibition of speed, etc)? You should research your state's bar entrance requirements if you do...

[diggleblop]

When I got busted they told me I couldn't make more than $12,000 a year and unless I was homeless, I had to also pay $50.00 to the state to "hire" the public defender.

[mmmiiikkkeee]

Originally Posted by Hank Beecher

The judge then said "why do you need a public defender, don't you have a job?". She said "no I don't". He asked her why not and she said it was because she was in school. The judge got upset and lectured her very sternly, telling her that it was her choice to go to school instead of getting a job and that it was not the tax payers responsibility to pay for her legal fees, and suggested she quickly get a job in order to pay her legal fees.

That's a horrible thing to hear; was the judge being serious or just ranting to make an impression? Can you actually be forced to quit school, forfeit scholarships, get booted out of residence, and take a crappy job in a dangerous neighborhood for fear of being denied legal council? How could a $10/hour job you just started possibly pay a $200/hr lawyer anyway, especially when your sudden rushed & unplanned life changes would likely leave you with even less money than your previous position? That case sounds like a grumpy judge who just wanted to nag rather than an actual legal order; it's not thought out at all. It would be especially cruel if the girl did all that and was actually proven innocent.

The idea that you "chose" to be poor at this particular time in life and therefore don't deserve a lawyer could be applied to anyone for any reason if a judge feels like it... it's ridiculous. What difference does it make why you can't afford a lawyer right now - isn't it the fact that you simply can't? What would happen if a person refuses to follow extreme "suggestions" like that and insists on a public defender anyways? "I need a lawyer immediately and I can prove I'm broke right now. I could get a job and save enough money over the next 6-8 months to get started, but my next court date is in 12 days; what now?" The judge quoted above does seem to be using too much discretion.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

While I appreciate that both of these comments were made in jest, I have to wonder where you guys grew up/live. I can count on one hand the number of my friends that don't have some sort of criminal records. Will bar associations truly deny entrance because of an MIP charge or a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge?

Just goes to show how different our world views are. I'm 43 years old and I don't have a single friend or family member that has ever had anything worse than a speeding ticket. It's simply not tolerated in my frame of reference. To each his own, but the feedback you are getting is real. We middle-aged, straight laced squares are just looking for a reason not to hire you.

[Hank Beecher]

Originally Posted by mmmiiikkkeee

That's a horrible thing to hear; was the judge being serious or just ranting to make an impression?

It was definitely a bit of a rant but he gave her another court date and sent her away without a lawyer so it was serious as far as I can tell.

That case sounds like a grumpy judge

For the record the judge was very nice and reasonable and fatherly to almost every one else there, including the persons right before and after the female DUI student. So if he was grumpy and taking it out on the defendants he was able to limit his outbursts to two of the many many cases he presided over that evening. The other time he got upset was when two female co defendants in a drug case started cursing at each other and just about started to throw down as they were leaving the courtroom.

The idea that you "chose" to be poor at this particular time in life and therefore don't deserve a lawyer could be applied to anyone for any reason if a judge feels like it... it's ridiculous.

Exactly, especially since there were dozens of people there with public defenders, and it was fairly obvious that a fair number of them were in the circumstances they were in at least in part due to drug abuse, a personal choice, and one seemingly much less responsible than the choice to go to school.

What difference does it make why you can't afford a lawyer right now - isn't it the fact that you simply can't?

One would think so, IANAL though, so I don't know whether this judge was overstepping his authority or not.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I'm 43 years old and I don't have a single friend or family member that has ever had anything worse than a speeding ticket.

As a simple empirical matter, you're either wrong, extremely isolated, or highly exceptional. Unless you meant that their conviction of a crime isn't "tolerated," in which case I have no idea what you mean.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

As a simple empirical matter, you're either wrong, extremely isolated, or highly exceptional. Unless you meant that their conviction of a crime isn't "tolerated," in which case I have no idea what you mean.

I'm not sure what you mean, now, either. In my circle, I can't think of anyone who's ever had any legal problems. In my family (not my circle), there's only one person who's ever had legal entanglements at all. In both cases, I'm excusing civil infractions such as speeding tickets. I don't think this is at all exceptional or isolated. The vast majority of people in this society are law abiding.

[Elendil's Heir]

I'm 44, living in a major city, and personally know no one with anything worse than a traffic ticket on his or her record.

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

I'm not sure what you mean, now, either. In my circle, I can't think of anyone who's ever had any legal problems. In my family (not my circle), there's only one person who's ever had legal entanglements at all. In both cases, I'm excusing civil infractions such as speeding tickets. I don't think this is at all exceptional or isolated. The vast majority of people in this society are law abiding.

Yeah same here. I know no one who has ever been arrested or convicted of a crime.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

I'm not sure what you mean, now, either. In my circle, I can't think of anyone who's ever had any legal problems. In my family (not my circle), there's only one person who's ever had legal entanglements at all. In both cases, I'm excusing civil infractions such as speeding tickets. I don't think this is at all exceptional or isolated. The vast majority of people in this society are law abiding.

Let's separate two things. Violating the law, and being convicted of violating the law. All of you who state that no one in your close circle has been convicted of violating the law, I believe you.

But the previous poster didn't seem to be talking about conviction, and it seems that neither are you with your statement that "the vast majority of people in this society are law abiding." That statement is unequivocally false. More than 90% of high school seniors admit to underage drinking, for example. And well more than half have used illegal drugs. White, middle-class people don't get in trouble for those things very often, but that doesn't make them less illegal.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

But the previous poster didn't seem to be talking about conviction, and it seems that neither are you with your statement that "the vast majority of people in this society are law abiding." That statement is unequivocally false. More than 90% of high school seniors admit to underage drinking, for example. And well more than half have used illegal drugs. White, middle-class people don't get in trouble for those things very often, but that doesn't make them less illegal.

I hate to bring this to a childish level, but I feel I have to. "It's not illegal unless you get caught." While that's not legally true, there's a high tolerance for "victimless crimes." Note that I excused "civil infractions" and the like. While possession of cocaine, for example, goes beyond civil infraction, as long as one is a responsible member of society, you're highly unlikely to get busted for such. You're only likely to get busted if you've done something stupid and compounded the problem, like, say, tried to sell to an undercover officer in order to support your habit.

So you're right -- in a strict sense the majority aren't law-abiding. Close to 100% on area freeways aren't, for example. On the other hand, I did mention "legal entanglements," so we're back to victimless crimes, or crimes that no one cares about, until you do something extra and beyond that makes them care about it.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by vinniepaz

While I appreciate that both of these comments were made in jest, I have to wonder where you guys grew up/live. I can count on one hand the number of my friends that don't have some sort of criminal records. Will bar associations truly deny entrance because of an MIP charge or a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge?

Every bar I've ever considered applying to has a "character and fitness" requirement. When you apply for admission, you have to fill out a very lengthy and detailed application. Mine was more intrusive than the ones I'd previously filled out for a security clearance in the military. You have to provide finger prints, and details of any criminal or civil litigation where you were a party (plus a ton of other info). Any criminal charge beyond minor traffic tickets means at the very least you'll have to explain in full, and probably have to appear in person before an ethics panel. A felony conviction means you probably aren't getting admitted without powerful evidence of rehabilitation.

[Richard Parker]

Balthisar, that's fine, but the original comment was made about drug use.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Balthisar, that's fine, but the original comment was made about drug use.

You're right, but also about other complicating factors, right? Or am I not even addressing the right string of posts?

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

You're right, but also about other complicating factors, right? Or am I not even addressing the right string of posts?

I was initially responding to the claim that, unlike vinniepaz whose friends have gotten in trouble for drugs, most people don't have any friends or family who break non-traffic laws.

[Albrecht Durer]

I'm an attorney and I work as a public defender's office in a liberal Indiana college town. At least in this county, you can get a public defender regardless almost regardless of whether you can afford private counsel; the judges routinely appoint PDs without asking about a defendant's financial information. What is actually quite common here is that a PD will do loads of pretrial work on a case and then, shortly before trial, clients will hire private counsel. I guess so they can save money, or maybe because they've been talking to jailhouse "lawyers" who think they know more law than someone that actually went to law school.
In other counties, it's just as others have described: there's no dedicated public defender's office, and "public defenders" are private attorneys who allow themselves to be appointed as counsel to indigent clients. The pay rate is shockingly low; some counties even have flat fees for each clients. Studies have actually shown that dedicated public defender offices offer better representation and at a lower cost.

Also, at least in Indiana, you can get a public defender for more than just criminal cases: juvenile deliquents, children and parents who are in trouble with the Dept. of Child Services (CHINS, Child in Need of Services, is what they're called), parental terminations, paternity hearings, mental health commitment hearings, and divorce cases where someone is about to be held in contempt.

[PatriotGrrrl]

Originally Posted by Albrecht Durer

What is actually quite common here is that a PD will do loads of pretrial work on a case and then, shortly before trial, clients will hire private counsel. I guess so they can save money, or maybe because they've been talking to jailhouse "lawyers" who think they know more law than someone that actually went to law school.

Or, as happened to a friend of mine, the defendant really can't afford a lawyer. But once they've had a chance to tell their friends about the situation, their friends raise the money for them. Which can take time.

After his case was resolved (plea bargained down to probation and time served), he got a bill for the public defender's time. I don't think it was very much though.

[Miss Violaceous]

Bricker already covered Virginia, but I can add this:

- The worksheet takes into account dependants/household size.

- If convicted, you must pay a max of $120 per misdemeanor count. We (the PD's) fill out a timesheet that determines this, though it's almost always over the $120 cap. The billing rate is $90/hour. There's also a cap for felonies, but I don't recall what it is at the moment.

- Because of this, a lot of our clients think that we are secretly trying to get them convicted because that's the only circumstance under which we get paid. Our paychecks come from a state agency, not from the locality. I don't know or care what happens to the collected fees.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Just goes to show how different our world views are. I'm 43 years old and I don't have a single friend or family member that has ever had anything worse than a speeding ticket. It's simply not tolerated in my frame of reference. To each his own, but the feedback you are getting is real. We middle-aged, straight laced squares are just looking for a reason not to hire you.

This middle-aged square could have gotten kicked out of the country if a cop had smelled (or claimed to smell) pot in her house or her car, while she lived in the US. Therefore, no illegal drugs were allowed in my house or my car and there were friends of my friends who were specifically Not Welcome, as they refused to understand "no drugs in my house or my car."

Actions have consequences and sometimes the actions that screw you aren't even your own.