Chief Accuses Judges of Giving Fines to County : Revenues: The Santa Paula official says there is a financial motive behind sentences of supervised probation for drunk drivers.

Santa Paula Police Chief Walter H. Adair has charged that Ventura County judges are putting drunk drivers on formal, supervised probation to bolster the county treasury--at the expense of city governments.

Under state law, if a drunk driver is placed on formal probation, the county gets the entire $1,255 fine that an offender typically pays. If a drunk driver is placed on unsupervised “summary probation,” almost half of the fine goes to the city where the arrest occurred.

Ventura County Municipal Court judges routinely placed most drunk drivers on summary probation until 1987, when they decided to place every drunk driver on formal probation. The judges said the idea was to supervise drunk drivers more closely and prevent new offenses, not to divert money to the county.

But in two recent letters to county officials, Adair cited a June 10 sentencing hearing as evidence that the judges had a financial motive as well.

“The focus of this sentence was not on justice, nor was it on rehabilitation, protecting the public, or sending a message to others about drinking and driving,” Adair wrote. “Clearly, the only concern was in how to divert the fine money to the county. . . .”

Adair said he happened to be in the audience when Municipal Judge Thomas J. Hutchins sentenced an Ohio man, William J. Gannt Jr., for drunk driving.

According to a transcript of the hearing, Gannt’s attorney, Michael J. Smith, said his client was willing to pay the $1,255 fine, but would have trouble reporting to a probation officer all the way from Ohio.

Hutchins said he was willing to let Gannt go on unsupervised probation as long as the county got the money, the transcript said.

“I think that’s what the county of Ventura is all about primarily, is getting its dollars,” the transcript quotes Hutchins as saying. “They can only do that, as I understand it, if there’s a formal probationary grant.”

Otherwise, the judge continued, “I think the city gets it.”

Hutchins is on vacation and could not be reached for comment. The court’s executive officer, Sheila Gonzalez, said his comments were “an attempt at humor that didn’t work.”

But to Adair, the exchange was clear evidence that Municipal Court judges consciously look out for the county’s coffers when they sentence drunk drivers.

“Judges seem to have a clear concept of the flow of fine money and consider it in their decisions,” he wrote.

The issue is important to him, Adair said, because the court’s 1987 change in probation policy has cost the city of Santa Paula about $100,000 a year.

“To me, that loss equates to approximately three police officers,” Adair wrote. “I believe three extra police officers on the street would have a greater impact on drunk driving than a formal probation in its current format.”

Adair’s comments angered Presiding Judge Herbert Curtis III and Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr. “The judges of the Municipal Court are offended by your accusations,” the judges said in a July 26 letter of response. “. . . We should be relying on your support instead of your criticism in this area.”

Curtiss and Campbell said the 1987 change had nothing to do with county finances. They noted that judges work for the state, not the county, and that the judiciary is an independent branch of government, not part of the county administration.

The judges said the change to formal probation was needed because drunk drivers were not paying their fines, attending alcohol information classes or complying with other terms of probation. The change has resulted in a decline in repeat offenses from 31% to 27.5%, they said.

Douglas Hansen, who supervises the county’s drunk-driver probation program, said about 32 probation officers now supervise about 11,500 drunk drivers who are on formal probation.

“The courts basically decided that this was a public policy issue and a public safety issue and that they intended to place greater emphasis on it,” Hansen said. “It’s not just a traffic ticket anymore.”

Adair said in a letter to the judges that he knows as well as anyone the horrors that drunk drivers cause. But he questioned whether the current drunk-driver probation program is the best way to tackle the problem.

The chief’s view drew support from Oxnard City Manager Vernon G. Hazen and from Camarillo City Manager J. William Little. All three have called for an outside cost-benefit analysis of the program.

After the 1987 change in court policy, the county’s 10 cities filed suit against the county, seeking to keep as much as $1.5 million a year collected from drunk drivers. The suit also sought to recoup $6 million that the cities said they had lost since the policy change.

A Santa Barbara Superior Court judge who heard the case ruled against the cities last August. They have appealed to the state Court of Appeal.