As a society, we talk a lot about the need to uplift vulnerable populations and frequently throw money into new, innovative programs to solve multigenerational poverty. After my experience with the Farr West Justice Court for a traffic infraction, I question if we are looking for complex solutions to a problem where looking inward at existing systems would provide greater traction. I believe three changes would make justice courts more accessible and fair for all Utahns: allow virtual participation, bring clarity to the process and require more accountability/transparency.

The problem

Imagine a young man in his 20s standing at a courtroom lectern looking up at an ominous judge. The judge reads off the man’s four charges, which mostly relate to the broken down condition of his vehicle. The judge inquires a little bit about the man’s situation, and he shares that he often switches between two run-down cars depending on which one is working at the time. He’s fined more than $800. When the judge asks him how he is going to make the payment, he asks to pay monthly in $100 increments.

This scenario is not a hypothetical, it is one of many that I witnessed while waiting for my turn before the judge at the Farr West Justice Court. For context, I was pulled over by Utah Highway Patrol and given a minor traffic citation in October 2023. Based on the law as it is written, I believe I did not break the law. I knew there was a process in place for this type of scenario, so I looked forward to my opportunity to defend myself and get a small glimpse into the justice system.

I knew trying to get the ticket dismissed wouldn’t be enjoyable, but what I didn’t anticipate was a convoluted, time-consuming process that not only discourages people from contesting injustice but prevents many people from accessing it. In my particular situation in Farr West, the court only meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 10 a.m. Attendance must be in person, and there is no way to predict how long it will take.

The process to contest a ticket generally unfolds in three appearances: entering a plea, meeting with the prosecuting attorney and participating in the trial. Occasionally the pre-trial matters can be handled in one hearing. While I voluntarily attended justice court to contest my ticket, other offenses require a court appearance.

Virtual participation

In the Farr West Justice Court, virtual hearings are only available for those in jail or living out of state. Every courtroom has virtual capabilities, including a Webex license, but there is not currently a statewide rule on the matter. Instead, it is left to each judge to decide.

While engaging in this process was frustrating for me, I can’t stop thinking about the man who can’t afford a reliable car and yet is required to attend justice court in person to plead “guilty” to that fact. For someone barely scraping by, missing out on work hours and spending gas money to attend court could mean the difference between affording rent or not.

This cost is amplified for individuals who have to secure child care. In some cases, the cost of an unjustified ticket might be devastating, but the cost of contesting it would be even greater. Taxpayers have already paid for virtual technology, so this option should be available for the first and second appearance.

Clarity to the process

I was disappointed to see how little information is provided to defendants after receiving a citation. It is an unnecessary learn-as-you-go process.

For example, I was under the impression meeting with the prosecuting attorney was required. I later found out you can skip this step and move straight to the trial — an option I would have taken.

If justice is the goal, empowering people with basic instructions via email on what to expect will help them make better, more informed decisions. This could be done in a way that excludes legal advice. The city already collects email addresses, so this would require very little extra effort.

Transparency/accountability

My final recommendation is to bring more transparency and accountability to the process. After calling several government entities to share my suggestions for improvement, no one could direct me to the right person to talk to. A service is being provided through the justice court, so why is customer satisfaction not being measured?

People will predictably be disgruntled given the nature of why they are involved with justice courts, but how can the courts strive for improvement if they don’t elicit feedback from those experiencing the system?

I would also advocate for more transparency as to where citation money goes and what justice court policies are local versus state. With so many entities involved, it is hard to know who is accountable.

Opportunity

With the legislative session just beginning, I can’t think of a better time to take a closer look at the barriers to entry and confusion associated with justice courts. I believe offering virtual participation, providing more information to participants and allowing a mechanism for collecting feedback would make a big difference to those who have to navigate the local court system.

Jessica Larsen is a marketing and communications professional with more than 10 years of experience in the field. She graduated from Utah State University with bachelor’s degrees in marketing and economics.

Newsletter