Beginning January 1 the Roanoke Rapids Police  Department will begin enforcing city ordinance violations through civil remedies rather than criminal means after the city council unanimously approved amendments to its code of ordinances.

In conjunction with this change, the council approved using the Debt Setoff Clearinghouse to collect the fines associated with the civil penalties — see related story at this link

Several factors, including conversations with the city attorney and city manager, led to Tuesday’s request by police Chief Shane Guyant.

Cities have two options under state statutes they can use for enforcing ordinances in their jurisdiction, he said. One is the criminal or infraction enforcement method. “This has been the course of action prescribed by the city for some time.” 

Guyant said today these city ordinances have been around “for as long as the ordinances have been around.”

A sample version of the ordinance form contained in the agenda package is currently being revised and is not intended to be the final version.

• Click to open image! Click to open image!
•  

But, he said, there are issues with the criminal enforcement of city ordinance violations. “One is when the violator is charged with an ordinance violation and they do not pay the fee for what they were cited for, the ordinance can be turned over to the clerk of court. At that time that person would have a criminal record for the ordinance violation.”

That would take officers off the streets and send them to court to testify in a criminal setting. “That could tie up the officer’s time as well,” Guyant told the council.

With changes that the district attorney’s office has made, he said, “They pretty much limited us from doing this criminal ordinance moving forward. If someone gets an ordinance violation in the city at the present time we can’t then send it to the clerk of court anymore. So it sits there and nothing can happen. We really don’t have any remedy for getting anything back from the violator for what they have done.”

Civil enforcement, the chief said, would mean the punishment is paid by a penalty.

Guyant asked for 12 city ordinance chapters to be recodified from criminal to civil, which includes traffic violations such as parking, speeding in alleys, and other traffic offenses. It also includes animal regulations, nuisances, littering, offenses against public property and offenses on the Canal Trail.

“Some things that were in our ordinance before … we’ve really decided there’s no need to have it in place in our ordinance if it’s already in North Carolina general statutes.”

For instance, North Carolina laws address speeding on city streets. The same applies to littering.

But state laws do not address speeding in alleyways. “That’s not technically covered under North Carolina general statutes. Speeding in alleyways would still be covered under the ordinance.”

Another city ordinance that will be stricken is one that says obedience to police is required — a violation that is covered under state laws through the crime of resist, delay, and obstruct. “There’s really no need to have an ordinance violation for something that’s already covered under North Carolina general statutes.”

Guyant said the purpose of these changes are not meant to be punitive on individuals. The department is also trying to eliminate officers being forced to use discretion when it comes to citing violators for an ordinance versus a general statute charge.

The purpose of changing these ordinances, the police chief said, is those were the ones germane to the criminal part. “Making these changes allows us to move from a criminal realm to a civil remedy for these particular things. We’re trying to enforce the law. We’re trying to make sure we stop the behavior but we’re also trying to not be punitive for citizens by sending them through a court to handle an ordinance violation and that being on their record for the rest of their lives.”

City Attorney Geoffrey Davis said the civil process will take the courts out of city ordinance violations. 

“This has kind of evolved over the years,” Davis said. “The situation with how you’re able to collect that and how the city is able to enforce those has evolved over the years from a constitutional perspective.”

As it stands now, all fines collected by the courts have to go to local school boards. 

There have been instances, Davis said, where a person would get cited for a city ordinance, not pay it and later be cited with a criminal summons but before they came to court decide to pay the city ordinance. “That runs afoul of that constitutional process when you do that.”

Said Davis: “What we want to do is not have those issues from those perspectives — not have the courts involved. The other part of it is to give a meaningful way to encourage individuals to comply with these city ordinances.”

Another part, Davis said, is, “A city can never look at city ordinances as a revenue generation scheme. When you start looking at it from that perspective that we are going to make money off someone in effect violating the law — that way lies danger.”

The system as approved gives the city a way to encourage compliance, he said.

There is also the issue of preemption, Davis told the council, an issue that takes away the option of officers to decide whether to write a city ordinance for speeding or issue a state citation. “There are so many problems with that that I probably don’t have to get into.”

The state statute addressing speeding preempts local governments going in “and basically creating their own regime to also criminalize that same act.”

Part of the reason for cutting out some of the ordinances is to give clarity to law enforcement officers.

The ordinance form that officers have will be revised and omits offenses that the city wouldn’t be able to lawfully charge, Davis said.

Guyant said a sample version of the ordinance form contained in the agenda package is currently being revised and is not intended to be the final version.

To get ready for the January 1 implementation, Guyant said, “We have a lot of procedural things we have to do with our own internal processes, our computer database system and also we have to get new citation books. This could take a little bit of time. That’s why we think January 1 would be a very appropriate time to make this change.”