PD - MC -1-25-13 Warrants1
A3 Problem Solving
Use this form when solving a specific problem
Use the Process Review Report to identify waste and update processes
Concern/Problem
The current system of notifying municipal court that a suspect has been arrested
and an arrest warrant is no longer needed is not reliable or standardized and could
lead to a person getting arrested twice on the same case.
Identify those
processes that may be
impacted
The process the police department uses for notifying municipal court that arrest
affidavits/warrants need to be cancelled.
The process by which municipal court cancels arrest affidavits/warrants when
notified by the police department.
Record the date the
problem was identified
November 12, 2012
Originator
Shelly Bigham, Jane Eilers, Chris Getty, Sean Morton
Contacts
Shelly Bigham, Jane Eilers, Chris Getty, Sean Morton, Mike Sweeney, Mary
Marshall, Maggie Arias
Problem Solving Team
Shelly Bigham, Jane Eilers, Chris Getty, Sean Morton, Mike Sweeney, Mary
Marshall, Maggie Arias
Describe Current
Situation
Currently, when an officer requests an arrest warrant for a suspect in a case, they
complete a municipal court arrest affidavit and forward it to the city prosecutor’s
office. The process of reviewing the arrest affidavit, processing of the warrant, and
getting it signed by the municipal court judge can take several days if not weeks.
Prior to the arrest warrant being issued, a police office may have contact with the
suspect and arrest them before the warrant is issued. The officer notifies the
prosecutor’s clerk that the arrest warrant is no longer needed. The prosecutor’s
clerk locates the arrest affidavit and assure that an arrest warrant is not issued for
this case.
The current system the officers use to notify the prosecutor’s office is inconsistent
and not reliable. By the time the prosecutor’s clerk is notified to pull the arrest
affidavit, the arrest affidavit may have already been passed to the court clerk’s office
for processing and issuance of the warrant. This current system is not reliable or
standardized and could lead to a person getting arrested twice on the same case.
Analysis
• The notification process for pulling an arrest affidavit is not consistent
among officers
• The prosecutor’s clerk that is normally notified could be gone from work
and the process to pull the arrest warrant may not start for several days
• The current system has no checks and balances
• The arrest affidavit may have been transferred to the court clerk’s office
and they have no immediate notification that an arrest warrant is no longer
needed
• It could take several days for the prosecutor’s office and/or the court
clerk’s office to pull an arrest affidavit/warrant from the system
• In processing an affidavit/warrant it goes through multiple hands
Make Recommendation
• Create an “email group,” that includes specific municipal court employees,
to be used when officers send notification to the court that an arrest
affidavit/warrant needs to be pulled
• Whoever has the affidavit/warrant, will “respond to all” in the email group
to let them know that the affidavit/warrant has been pulled from the
system
• The municipal court officer will ensure that the affidavit/warrant is pulled
from the system the same day that municipal court is notified. (This
responsibility will fall to the municipal court supervisor should the
municipal court officer be gone.)
2
Labor and Cost Savings XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Annual dollar savings:
N/A
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Annual hours of increased capacity:
N/A
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Use bullet points to identify customer service or employee benefits:
• Improved communication between the police department, prosecutor’s
office, and court clerk’s office
• Citizens are not arrested twice for the same criminal case
Implementation Plan
• Create a municipal court email group
• Notify all officers of the new procedure
• Notify all municipal court employees of the new procedure
Attachments
(include current and proposed process documentation forms, or before and after
photos, or other before and after descriptions as appropriate)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Approval Process
See next page for approval process
Supervisor’s Review
and others in the Chain of
Command
Instructions: This form is submitted through the chain of command to the Director
Date: 12-21-2012
Name: Mike Sweeney, Sean Morton, Jane Eilers, Chris Getty
Comments: None
Director’s Approval
Instructions: Approval authority is delegated to each Director for all
recommendations that results in $5,000 or less in annual savings, or 250 hours or
less of annual increased capacity. This form is sent to the Process Improvement
Director for his approval.
Date: 02-25-2013
Name: Chief James D. Hill
Approved/Denied:
Process Improvement
Director’s Approval
Instructions: Upon approval this form is sent to the CMO Executive Assistant, who
forwards a copy to members of the Executive Support Team. They determine how to
convert hours into budgetary savings.
Date: 02/25/13
Approved/Denied:
City Manager’s
Approval
Instructions: Final sign off for all recommendations that exceed $5,000 in annual
savings, or 250 hours of annual increased functional capacity is by the City
Manager, who also signs off on any plans to convert hours to budgetary savings. The
CMO Executive Assistant converts the approved form into a pdf file that is saved on
the P drive and in Laserfiche.
Date: 2/25/13
Approved to take it to the City Commission