Ottawa County district court judge reports caseload rise, system upgrades and heavier probation monitoring

Chief Judge Pro Tem Craig Bunce summarized the Ottawa County district courts’ 2024 annual report to the Board of Commissioners on Aug. 26, highlighting a 23% increase in general civil filings over a five-year span, the countywide transition to a new case-management system and expanded probation monitoring.

Bunce said the courts replaced an older AS/400-based system in 2024. “We said goodbye to our beloved AS 400,” he told commissioners, and although the new system “is providing some great benefits for statewide reporting purposes, we lost a lot of interconnectivity with our local departments as a result.” He added staff worked through “a lot of frustration, a lot of anxiety, and a lot of hard work” during the transition.

The judge stressed that statistics reflect people’s lives. He described landlord–tenant filings as largely nonpayment cases — which give tenants a chance to stay if they catch up on rent — rather than termination actions that evict tenants and force moves.

Bunce summarized probation and monitoring activity for 2024: probation officers completed 1,335 presentence investigations, did 3,826 home checks and 1,489 bond screens. The probation office processed 54,691 urine tests; continuous alcohol-monitor units recorded 906,104 readings; breath-alcohol monitors logged about 47,050 tests; and GPS monitors produced roughly 10,000,000 location points used for supervision and safety monitoring, he said.

“The probation office and their probation agents stepped up to the game as well and did a great job in that transition,” Bunce said, noting the department began supervising an additional 980 individuals in 2024. He also highlighted the county’s treatment courts (sobriety and mental-health dockets), saying they continue to perform better than statewide averages.

Bunce described other 2024 developments: Michigan Supreme Court continuing-education requirements for judges and magistrates, onboarding three new chief clerks, and biannual staff enrichment meetings that included discussions of how artificial intelligence may affect court practice. On AI, Bunce said he reviews filings closely and has found instances where citations in briefs did not check out; “AI is a great tool, but AI also tries to just put in what it thinks it needs to put in,” he said, and judges must verify legal accuracy.

Commissioners asked about AI use, community-service placements for those ordered to perform JAWS (jail-alternative work service) or community service, and whether probation sanctions and community service could include outdoor or cleanup work. Bunce said JAWS placements already include outdoor tasks, such as cemetery cleanup and beach or park trash pickup, and that some probation participants reported meaningful experiences from those assignments.

The judge concluded by reminding commissioners that the district court’s work is “in the people business,” and that numbers represent individuals and families affected by court decisions. He invited questions and deferred detailed data questions to court administrators and probation staff.