Login | December 30, 2024
Judge removed from office for illegal tactics used to collect fines and court costs
DAN TREVAS
Supreme Court
Public Information Office
Published: October 4, 2024
The Supreme Court of Ohio immediately removed Stow Municipal Court Judge Kim Hoover from office and suspended him from the practice of law for 18 months, with six months stayed, for the tactics he used to collect fines and fees.
Based on 16 criminal cases before Judge Hoover, the Supreme Court found he committed 48 violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and 16 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Hoover wrongfully jailed two men for failure to pay fines and court costs, and 14 other criminal defendants were “coerced into paying fines and costs under unlawful threats of incarceration,” the Court ruled.
Writing for the Court, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained that only by following a specific state law can a person be jailed for failing to pay a fine, and the Ohio Constitution prevents a person from being jailed for failing to pay court costs. Judge Hoover expressed during disciplinary proceedings that following the law, R.C. 2947.14, was impractical.
“Hoover’s decision to disregard the Ohio Constitution, statutes enacted by the General Assembly, and this court’s thorough guidance in favor of his own preferences is unjustifiable,” Justice Fischer wrote.
The opinion noted Judge Hoover expressed an attempt to reduce taxpayer funds used to support the municipal court by trying to hold those who committed crimes accountable for their actions. However, the judge was overzealous in his collection efforts and showed bias against those of lower socioeconomic status, the Court concluded.
“Hoover leaned into the idea of a debtors’ prison, unlawfully incarcerating or threatening to incarcerate individuals for nonpayment of fines without due process, and unconstitutionally incarcerating or threatening to incarcerate individuals for nonpayment of court costs,” Justice Fischer stated.
Six months of Judge Hoover’s suspension was stayed on the condition he not commit further misconduct. His suspension from office is without pay and will continue for the duration of his suspension from the practice of law.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters joined the opinion. Justice R. Patrick DeWine concurred in judgment only.
Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.
Sanction Splits Proposed Suspension Time
In May 2022, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Judge Hoover with the Board of Professional Conduct. The complaint alleged the same four rule violations for 16 cases.
In each instance, Judge Hoover was charged with violating three judicial rules, including one requiring a judge to act at all times to promote public confidence in the judiciary's independence, integrity, and impartiality. The other rules require a judge to uphold and apply the law and prohibit a judge from using language or acting in a way that can be perceived as biased based on race, disability, or socioeconomic status. In addition, the disciplinary counsel claimed Judge Hoover violated the rule that a lawyer not engage in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice,” including showing “indifference to a legal obligation,” such as not following the law.
The board found Judge Hoover had committed all the violations and recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for two years. Judge Hoover argued he twice violated the rule requiring him to apply the law but contested the other violations. He suggested the Court suspend him for one year, with six months stayed.
Supreme Court Analyzed Rule Violations
“Our criminal-justice system strives to ensure that no matter how rich or poor, each defendant receives equal justice under the law,” Justice Fischer wrote.
He explained the Ohio judicial system treats fines and court costs differently.
The General Assembly presented a procedure in R.C. 2947.14 for jailing an offender who fails to pay a fine. The opinion noted the law is the only procedure that can be used to jail someone for not paying a fine. First, a judge must separate the fine amount from court costs and any other financial penalty imposed. Then, the offender must be provided reasonable notice of a hearing, and the court must conduct a hearing on the offender’s ability to pay the fine. Offenders must be advised of a right to have an attorney and be given a chance to be heard on the matter. Lastly, the court must make a specific finding that the offender has the ability to pay but “willfully refuses to do so.”
If an offender is jailed for failing to pay a fine, the offender is granted $50 credit toward the fine for each partial or full day spent in jail.
With court costs, a criminal defendant cannot be sent to jail for failing to pay, the opinion stated. Court costs are civil, not criminal, penalties, and under Article I, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution, a person cannot be imprisoned for a civil debt, the Court stated.
The opinion noted Ohio judges receive guidance through bench cards, produced by the Supreme Court, with imposing fines, fees, and court costs. The cards also inform a judge when incarceration is authorized for nonpayment of fines. The Court analyzed the charges against Judge Hoover in the 16 cases and found he did not comply with the law or rules, often sending or threatening to send offenders to jail for failure to pay unsegregated fines and court costs.
Judge Claims Clerical Error Led to Jailing Offender
Matthew Cannon was one of the offenders Judge Hoover imprisoned. The judge argued his intent was not to send Cannon to jail but a clerical error “resulted in a bad result.” The Court disagreed.
Cannon was arrested in 2018 for driving under suspension and making an illegal turn, both non-jailable misdemeanors. When Cannon failed to appear for his arraignment, Judge Hoover issued a warrant for his arrest. A year later, Cannon was arrested and appeared before Judge Hoover without a lawyer.
Cannon pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to $125 in fines and $442 in court costs. The judge ordered Cannon to pay what he owed or be jailed for three days. The order stated Cannon would be credited $50 per day in jail. When Cannon did not pay, he was jailed for four days. Judge Hoover did not inform Cannon that he was entitled to an attorney, and the judge did not conduct an ability-to-pay hearing.
When Cannon was brought back to court, Judge Hoover asked him, “[Y]ou’ve learned your lesson about being a deadbeat?” Cannon replied, “Yes, sir.” Judge Hoover stated, “When you don’t take my orders, what happens, I put you in an orange suit and say just sit there and look at the walls.”
Judge Hoover released Cannon from jail, crediting him $250 toward his fines and court costs, and told Cannon he needed to pay the balance within 30 days or “we’re gonna be talkin’ orange again.”
By failing to separate the $125 fine from the court costs, Judge Hoover violated R.C. 2947.14 and the state constitution by sending Cannon to jail for four days. He also threatened to send Cannon back to jail to recoup unpaid court costs, which is illegal, the opinion noted.
“Hoover fully admitted he does not follow R.C. 2947.14 because the statute does not work effectively for him,” the Court stated.
The Court’s opinion noted that even after Judge Hoover was told by his bailiff that Cannon should not have been jailed, the judge maintained he still had the ability to jail Cannon again if he failed to pay the remaining balance.
“This type of behavior — ignoring the application of a statute and failing to admit when the court has unlawfully deprived a person of his liberty — fails to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” the opinion stated.
Court Considered Sanctions Imposed on Judges
When determining a sanction for Judge Hoover, the Court examined past suspensions imposed on other judges who improperly threatened those who owed money to pay up. Judge Hoover advocated for a shorter suspension, noting he gave defendants an opportunity to enter payment plans, imposed light sentences compared to what the law allows, and tried to provide defendants opportunities to be responsible so they get back on the right track.
The Court noted Judge Hoover tried to compel payment because he believed it was his responsibility that the Stow Municipal Court be self-funded, and taxpayers should not be burdened by a lack of collecting payments owed by defendants.
The Court stated those goals must be accomplished within the confines of the law. The Court noted Judge Hoover’s violations were similar to Gallia County Probate Judge William Medley, who was given an 18-month suspension with six months stayed in 2004. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, the judge issued arrest warrants to those who owed but did not pay judgments against them in civil cases. Judgment collections increased from $90,000 in 1993 to $800,000 in 2003, but the Court ruled Judge Medley’s actions were “wholly unlawful.”
In addition to the suspension, the Court ruled Judge Hoover must pay the costs of disciplinary proceedings.
The case is cited 2023-0188. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoover, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-4608.