slu municipal courts study highlights

8/19/2019 SLU municipal courts study highlights

1/30

Perceptions of the Municipal Court

Systems in Saint Louis County

Ness Sandoval – Sociology

Ken Warren – Political Science

Henry Ordower – Law School

Brendan Roediger – Law School


2/30

Research Questions

• How do people who received a traffic citation viewtheir experience with the municipal court system?

• Is there a difference in the perceptions of themunicipal court system by race?

•

Is there a difference in the perceptions of themunicipal court system by the socio-economicstanding of the municipality?


3/30

Municipal Courts in the Study

$24,744

$27,785

$28,480

$28,480

$32,182

$40,660

$92,033

$94,263

$95,500

$100,682

$126,042

$162,500

$179,464

Normandy

Jennings

Pine Lawn

Pagedale

Berkeley

Ferguson

Creve Coeur

Chesterfield

Clayton

Sunset Hills

Frontenac

Town and Country

Ladue city

Median Household Income(In 2014 Inflation Adjusted Dollars)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010-2014 Estimates


4/30

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA


5/30

3.28

2.85

1.47

0.96

0.17 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.01

Warrants Per Capita(2014)*

*Average for all municipalities = .67


6/30

2.2

.5

3.1

1.5

4.0

17.2

.81.3

.6 .9 .9 .7.3 .3 .2 .1.8

6.7

Berkeley Ferguson Jennings* Normandy Pagedale Pine Lawn

Five Year Disparity Index Average(2010-2014)

White Black Hispanic

Disparity index = (proportion of stops/proportion of population). A value of 1 represents no disparity; values greater than 1 indicateover-representation, values less than 1 indicate under-representation.

*Data only is available for 2010


7/30

1.0 .8 1.0 .9 .9 1.0 1.0

3.4 3.3 2.8

8.7

15.0

6.5

4.8

.3 .2

5.0

.3 .5 .5 .5

Chesterfield Clayton Creve Coeur Frontenac Ladue Sunset Hills Town and

Country

Five Year Disparity Index Average(2010-2014)

White Black Hispanic

Disparity index = (proportion of stops/proportion of population). A value of 1 represents no disparity; values greater than 1 indicate

over-representation, values less than 1 indicate under-representation.


8/30

SATISFACTION ANDFAIRNESS


9/30

35%

12%

34%

12%

45%

13%

44%

43%

26%

23%

38%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

White Affluent White Non-Affluent Black Affluent Black Non-Affluent Other Affluent OtherNon-Affluent

Overall rating of the municipal court system

Excellent Good


10/30

78.4% 76.8%

72.3% 71.0%67.7%

66.1%

55.2%53.2% 52.0%

41.6%

33.8%

29.3%

20.3%

Overall rating of the municipal court systemBy municipality (Good and Excellent Combined)

Affluent Non-Affluent


11/30

25%

10%

22%

10%

28%

11%

44%

57%

49%

33%

41%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Fairness of the penalty/fine

Very Fair Fair


12/30

MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE


13/30

42%

33%

52%

24%

46%

30%

46%

51%

36%

44%

38%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rating of the fairness of the municipal court judge

Very Fair Fair


14/30

71%

49%

67%

43%

71%

52%

25%

44%

25%

35%

21%

35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


Rating of the respectfulness of the municipal court judge

Very Respectful Respectful


15/30

MUNICIPAL COURT OFFICIALS(PROSECUTOR, CITY HALL AND MUNICIPAL COURT STAFFERS)


16/30

41%

33%

39%

19%

58%

30%

50%

50%

53%

51%

25%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rating of the courteousness of the municipal court officials

Very Courteous Courteous


17/30

46%

29%

49%

20%

51%

22%

43%

51%

41%

48%

33%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rating of the respectfulness of the municipal court officials



18/30

POLICE


19/30

35%

22%25%

14%

32%

14%

45%

42%

46%

40%

41%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Rating of the respectfulness of the police when stopped


O ll i f h f l f h li


20/30

85.3%

77.0% 75.9%72.5%

69.4% 68.8% 68.1%

59.8%

55.3%

47.8%

36.8%

Overall rating of the respectfulness of the policeBy municipality (Good and Excellent Combined)

Affluent Non-Affluent

NA NA

R i f h f i f h li h d


21/30

40%

17%

26%

14%

44%

17%

37%

39%

40%

34%

26%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Rating of the fairness of the police when stopped

Very Fairly Fairly

R i f h li f i li h d


22/30

36%

19%

30%

15%

41%

13%

42%

39%

43%

36%

38%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Rating of the police professionalism when stopped

Very Professional Professional

R i f h f h li h d


23/30

38%

17%

26%

15%

36%

18%

44%

42%

45%

35%

28%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Rating of the courteousness of the police when stopped

Very Courteous Courteous

R ti f th b ti f th li h t d


24/30

4%6%

9% 8%

16%

9%

21%

14%

19%

27%14% 27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


Rating of the combativeness of the police when stopped

Very Combative Combative


25/30

MOTIVATION FOR THETRAFFIC STOP

Racial profiling played a role in the traffic stop


26/30

8.2%

24.3%

38.1%

33.8%

23.7%

33.8%

7.5%

18.9%

16.5%

20.7%

18.4%

27.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%


Racial profiling played a role in the traffic stop

Yes Unsure

Ticketed to promote public safety or to raise revenue


27/30

57%

80%

58%

72%

53%

81%

43%

20%

42%

28%

47%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Ticketed to promote public safety or to raise revenue

More to raise revenue for city More to promote public safety


28/30

SUMMARY

1 W f d diff i th ti f th i i l t t d di


29/30

1. We found differences in the perceptions of the municipal court systems, depending

upon whether the municipal courts were located in affluent or non-affluence

municipalities. All respondents consistently gave more positive ratings to various municipal

court measurements in the affluent municipalities compared to the non-affluent

municipalities.

2. We found that municipal court judges received positive ratings, as compared to

police, in both the affluent and non-affluent municipalities. Police received measurably

poorer ratings in the non-affluent municipalities.

3. We found differences in the perceptions of the municipal court systems by race.Specifically, we found that blacks and other minorities gave more negative ratings to all

municipal court systems than whites, especially in non-affluent municipalities.

4. We found that blacks were more likely to believe that racial profiling played a role in

their traffic stop compared to whites in both affluent and non-affluent municipalities.

Whites in non-affluent municipalities were three times more likely than whites in affluent

municipalities to believe that racial profiling played a role in their traffic stops.

5. We found that the vast majority of respondents believed that tickets were being

issued to raise revenue than to promote public safety. This was seen to be more the case

in the non-affluent municipalities.


30/30

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

slu municipal courts study highlights

Documents