Municipal court assessment: Monroe sees rising DWLS cases and jail‑day costs; staffing and diversion options recommended

Liam McCorple presented the 2025 Monroe Municipal Court assessment to the City Council during the Oct. 21 study session, highlighting case trends, jail costs and staffing considerations and offering recommendations to reduce costs and future pressure on the court.

Why this matters: The assessment identifies operational and fiscal pressures—rising DWLS (driving while license suspended) cases, increasing pretrial jail days and expected growth in demand—that could raise public defense and jail expenditures and affect city budgets and staffing over the next several years.

Key findings and numbers: The presentation showed Monroe’s filings closely tracked statewide trends: a decline prior to 2020, a sharp drop in 2021 and a gradual rise since 2022. In 2024 the city recorded 1,335 filings—753 infractions and 582 misdemeanors. McCorple said the most common misdemeanor charges in 2024 were driving with license suspended (DWLS), first‑ and second‑degree trespass, theft in the third degree, fourth‑degree assault and controlled‑substance offenses. He also said about 17% of DWLS filings were third‑degree DWLS.

Jail costs and pretrial time: McCorple told council that projected jail costs for 2025 rose substantially and that the largest driver was total housing days (the daily charge for housing inmates), not booking fees, video court charges or medical costs. Bookings remained relatively steady, he said, but the city was billed for longer time in custody—often time spent awaiting arraignment or trial. McCorple and the judge’s office noted factors that can lengthen pretrial days include stronger bail practices, failure to appear by defendants (which can prompt warrants and booking), and booking timing (for example, bookings before weekends that extend billed housing days). McCorple recommended evaluating booking and bail procedures for low‑level cases, with DWLS flagged as a possible example where charging and handling could be reconsidered to reduce pretrial housing days.

Public defense and staffing: The city contracts for public defense; McCorple said roughly 85% of defendants used contracted public defense services and flagged new Washington Supreme Court caseload standards that will phase in through 2035. He presented a high estimate that public defense spending could rise by as much as about $780,000 by the long‑term implementation date if caseload standards and market pressures materialize. He also noted Monroe has fewer full‑time equivalents (FTEs) for court staff than comparison cities, and recommended planning additional court clerk staffing over the next six years—especially if the city adopts automated traffic safety cameras that will add infraction volume.

Probation and diversion: The municipal probation counselor handles about 89 active cases, 57 monitored cases and seven record‑only checks. McCorple described existing diversion programming (community court, deferred prosecution and an embedded social worker in the public defender contract) and recommended continuing and seeking grant funding (e.g., RCW 10.101 funds, SAMHSA) to support restorative and diversion programs that reduce jail and public defense costs.

Forecast and recommendations: Staff presented a low/moderate/high forecast that projected filings could grow between about 5.5% and 38% by the long forecast date (presented as 02/1932 in the slide deck). Recommendations included: (1) targeted mitigation for high‑volume misdemeanors and continuing diversion programs; (2) convening police, court and executive staff to reexamine charging practices for certain offenses—DWLS was given as one example where infractions might achieve the same public‑safety goal at lower cost; (3) investigating alternatives to jail such as electronic home monitoring and other behavioral‑health diversion options; (4) modernizing court technology and online services to reduce clerical workload; (5) planning phased staffing additions if automated traffic‑safety camera programs are adopted; and (6) developing quarterly performance indicators and scheduling a five‑year follow‑up court assessment.

Council feedback and follow up: Council members asked technical and policy questions about DWLS scope and use, whether DWLS reflects suspended licenses or unlicensed drivers, when DWLS is used as a step‑down charge and whether custody or jail destination alternatives exist that might reduce the city’s per‑day housing expense. Pam Haley, the court administrator, clarified types of DWLS and noted circumstances when different degrees apply. McCorple and council members agreed to convene a working group to examine charging guidelines and potential policy changes for selected low‑level offenses and to continue study of jail alternatives and staffing impacts.

Ending: McCorple said the full report and appendices are in the council packet; council asked staff to return with additional analysis and options for possible policy changes and staffing plans.