MISSOULA — An ordinance change lowering a misdemeanor charge to a civic infraction for certain violations of city code survived the Missoula City Council intact on Monday night.
Council member Daniel Carlino introduced the ordinance change last week to amend violations of the city's “general penalty,” saying the city needed to explore alternatives to the criminal justice system.
A general penalty is the penalty used by the city when there's no specific penalty listed for a violation of a city code. It generally includes violations not covered by federal or state law, or things not already stated in municipal code.
“The default shouldn't be a criminal charge, a misdemeanor charge,” Carlino said. “We should have a reason to give people a misdemeanor charge and we should specifically tie a code violation to that misdemeanor charge.”
When a violation of city code occurs and has no penalty listed, the city resorts to classifying it as a general penalty. Prior to Monday night, the penalty was a misdemeanor, though it's now simply a criminal infraction.
While a criminal infraction can still come with a fine, Carlino said the ordinance change enables the City Attorney's Office to seek other means.
“This changes it from a misdemeanor to a civic infraction, which would be a fine,” said Carlino. “Along with that, it would give people more time to pay their fine – a period of payments – and give an opportunity to the City's Attorney's Office to find other ways to remediate the issue without a fine.”
City Attorney Ryan Sudbury said that roughly 75% of code violations have a specific penalty written in. But the other 25% don't and it's there where the city calls for a general penalty, which is now a simple “infraction” rather than a misdemeanor.
While a municipal infraction often comes with a $300 fine, it's rarely enforced, Sudbury said. He added that the city rarely cites violations under the “general penalty.”
“The overwhelming majority of things cited in municipal court are state law crimes,” said Sudbury. “There's a couple of regular city ordinance violations that are cited, but those have a specific misdemeanor penalty attached to them, so this ordinance change would not affect those. I actually struggled to find examples in city code that don't have a penalty.”
Along with dropping misdemeanor charges, the ordinance change also lists alternatives to fines. Specifically, it cites “situations where the violation appears to stem from problems related to poverty, substance abuse, or mental health.”
Council member Bob Campbell offered a motion to strike that provision from the ordinance change, but it failed on a 5-4 vote.
“We have a condition in municipal court where they put someone on a deferred sentence without certain conditions and quite frankly, sometimes municipal court judgment falls through on conditions and dismisses cases for people on a deferred sentence,” Campbell said.
The ordinance change ultimately passed on an 8-1 vote, with Campbell in opposition.
