COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 301 Broadway, Mezzanine 101 City of Bethlehem Bethlehem, 537 Wards1,e,s,4. NANCY MATOS GONZALEZ Magisterial District Judge Fax: 510-353-1195 Magisterial District December 10, 2019 Mark A. DiLuzio Chief of Police City of Bethlehem 10 East Church Street Bethlehem, PA 13018-6025 Dear Chief DlLuzio, I recently received your letter referencing my previous discussions with both yourself and Mayor Donchez. To be clear, I initiated contact to voice my concern regarding a'noted potential for disparity in sanctions, permanent records, and ?nancial cost for Individuals prosecuted for small amount of marijuana. This noted potential for disparity is solely based upon which one of the two police departments operating within this district prosecutes the case. Further, expressed that the differing policy practices between the two agencies has, in my professional opinion, brought forth a situation which constricts my ability to dispense equitable justice. As you are aware, Bethlehem Police and Lehigh University Police both operate in South Bethlehem. Understandably, as independent agencies, each has its own Standard Operating Procedures. I am fully cognizant it is not my role, practice, nor desire to critique those procedures. I do, though, unabashedly feel compelled to illuminate what is potentially an undetected consequential re5ult of policy implementation and absolutely believe it is my role to speak out to systemic matters affecting my rulings and sworn oath to uphold justice. As the presiding Magisterial District Judge in this district, I offer the following summary of happenings since the enactment of the law up until the date of meeting with the Mayor on September 26, 2019. These are the pertinent factors relating to these case filings on which I base my concerns: I Lehlgh University PD has by general policy and practice ?led the local summary ordinance in the Small Amount cases, which decriminalizes the possession of marijuana. C'd l68l"3'll lid . Bethlehem PD policy allows for "Of?cer discretion to use ordinance, state law or both.? Ely practice, the Bethlehem Police of?cers have, in this district alone, filed the criminal grading of Poss of a Small Amount at a rate" of 3.25 times more often than the ordinance offense. Additionally, for cases that a Bethlehem Police of?cer has filed a Poss of Drug Paraphemalia charge related to Marijuana, the officer is 7 times more likely to ?le the criminal Poss of Small Amount charge. Defendants who are charged with a city ordinance of Poss of a Small Amount of Marijuana are ordered to pay a set fine and cost amount of $116.25 for a ?rst offense and a maximum set fine and cost of $241.25 for up to a offense within one calendar year. . Defendants who plead guilty to the criminal charge of Poss of a Small Amount of Marijuana can be ordered to pay fine and cost of up to $1073.75 and up to 30 days incarceration. in an effort to balance the scales for parties prosecuted for the criminal charge rather than the summary offense, I, by practice, set the ?ne at $1.90 minimal amoUnt. Unfortunately, once the cest for criminal processing fees are attached the total minimal amount due is These parties are subject to cost almost 5 times higher than the summary cost and they are subjEct to a potentially more serious residual sanction of a resulting permanent criminal record. II Unfortunately, there are many individuals who ?wish to plead guilty to the charge at the Preliminary Hearing but do not have the means to post the $574.?5 ?ne and cost assessment. The district court does not supervise ?ne and cost collection of criminal cases and those parties, more often than not, waive their preliminary hearings, often by necessity to have time to raise Some funds. in the interim months awaiting their case, they are subject to bail and with the potential for supervision with speci?ed conditions. Once their case comes to resolution, they are subject to a significant increase in cost at the higher court level. 1 For the defendants who do not dispute the merits of the case but are interested in preserving their record, they often chose to waive their.Pre iminary Hearing to the higher court and seal: the ARD program. They are then subject to the assessment of bail with potential conditions,- often subject to further cost to hire legal counsel to maneuver through the process of the higher court application process; face even more signi?cant court cost at the higher level; and may be Subject to probationary Supervision. For the sake of transparency, I will state my motive in addressing my concerns is not based on a philosophical stance regarding how Marijuana cases should be prosecuted. Undoubtedly, the approach towards the prosecution of Marijuana cases is in a transitional time period on the national, state, county, and city level. I am also aware that has complicated circumstances speci?c to the City of Bethlehem, which lies within two differing counties. My motive is purely to strive for an equal playing 'd "all 0'1 field for all who appear before this District Court. Right now, that does not currently exist and the result is polarizing. To be as frank as possible, if you are arrested for the charge at hand by Lehigh University, which is a long standing prestigious academic institution, you will likely, by far, be subject to less sanctions, court supervision, and permanent effects than if you are a citizen in the same circumstance from the city streets charged within the same Magisterial District that is all contained within a one square mile radius. I ask how that can be justified. i will not ignore that the demographics between both communities are unarguably vastly differing based on race, ethnicity, and economic levels. Therefore, I stand by my comment made earlier that there is a systemic issue to address here, of which I do not wish to be complicit. I remain hopeful this writing will prompt a closer look at the circumstances at hand and potential for disparity, particularly with the order ?Df?cer discretion to use ordinance, state law or both-" Sincerely, Was. ?1 I or has. s. In .5- ssh-{st 5?s of? .H: or. e, e5; we? ?sat ?gs a: II . Nancy Matos Gonzalez 5 F5 :5 11Magisterial DistrictJudge to.13: . :gss ?5?s -. s3 . . . cc: District AttorneyJohn Morganell: ?i?i'PToN 5?3 of? f? ll: I i Mayor Robert Donchez ChiefJason Schiffer, Lehigh University PD 'd i681 Wdiiliit tailiZ ?Ci