Collateral Consequences to Misdemeanor Offenses: Arizona Law and the Need for Reform

Abstract

Individuals charged with or convicted of a crime in the United States may also be subjected to other penalties that are triggered into effect strictly because of the criminal case. These consequences are separate from the criminal justice system and are not part of the sentence imposed by the criminal court. Thus, they are commonly referred to as “collateral consequences.” This thesis presents research on collateral consequences, their intersections with the criminal justice system in Arizona specifically, and the prospective resulting inequities suffered by self-represented misdemeanor defendants. This thesis conducts a case study of one collateral consequence law in Arizona—the Fingerprint Clearance Card Program—a statewide, standardized background check program that requires individuals employed in numerous fields to obtain a fingerprint clearance card “prior to or as a condition of licensure, certification, or employment.” The laws regulating the Fingerprint Clearance Card Program allow an individual’s fingerprint clearance card to be suspended immediately upon arrest, and revoked upon conviction, for various criminal offenses. This thesis also reports findings from public records requests from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the government agency that administrates the Fingerprint Clearance Card Program. These requests show that the Fingerprint Clearance Card Program impacts a significant portion of the Arizona population’s employability, exemplifying how severe the impacts of collateral consequences can be on individuals charged with or convicted of misdemeanor crimes. Furthermore, this thesis reports data from public records requests from every misdemeanor court in Arizona to illustrate how frequently misdemeanor defendants in Arizona were represented by an attorney versus those who represented themselves. These results indicated that most municipal and justice courts in Arizona did not track the number of misdemeanor criminal defendants who represented themselves in criminal prosecutions. However, from the limited available data, it is likely that a majority of misdemeanor defendants represented themselves throughout their criminal prosecution. This thesis examines the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and applied in Arizona. The current legal threshold to determine who is entitled to the appointment of counsel depends exclusively on if the accused is facing jail time. Consequently, individuals charged with misdemeanor offenses who are not facing jail time are not entitled to a court-appointed attorney. The research in this thesis shows that the existing legal threshold for when a misdemeanor defendant should be constitutionally appointed counsel is likely no longer sufficient, and instead, suggests the adoption of a more holistic approach that considers the impacts of collateral consequences. Additionally, the research presented in this thesis demonstrates that Arizona lacks transparency surrounding collateral consequences and calls for Arizona to implement collateral consequence reform efforts.