“Blind Obsession”

A preview of a judicial misconduct matter to be argued today before the Ohio Supreme Court

Judge Challenges Claim That He Ran Modern Day Debtor’s Prison

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hon. Kim Richard Hoover, Case No. 2023-0188
Summit County

A Stow Municipal Court judge is facing a two-year suspension for coercing people to pay court costs and fines in what disciplinary officials described as “the equivalent of a modern-day debtor’s prison.”

Judge Kim Hoover denies that he used unlawful means to collect fines and costs, but rather found ways to “get the attention of a small group of defendants who failed to appear in court, refused to fulfil their sentences, or otherwise thumbed their noses at the court.”

Based on a complaint filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, the Board of Professional Conduct found Judge Hoover committed 64 ethics violations while handling 16 cases. The board recommends the Supreme Court of Ohio suspend Judge Hoover from the practice of law for two years, and immediately remove him from office without pay.

Judge Hoover concedes that he mistakenly didn’t follow the law for collecting past fines or costs owed by two defendants and at most he should receive a one-year suspension with six months stayed, and no removal from office. Judge Hoover’s objections to the board’s report triggered an oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Judge Doesn’t Apply Debt Collection Law, Board Asserts
The board reports that R.C. 2947.14 provides the “sole and exclusive method” for imposing a jail sentence for the refusal to pay a fine. It notes the Supreme Court has established that the purpose of fines and costs aren’t to generate revenue. Fines are criminal sanctions, and a defendant who doesn’t pay but has the ability to pay can be jailed and credited $50 toward payment of the fine for each day in jail. Court costs are civil obligations, and a defendant doesn’t face the threat of jail for nonpayment, the board explains. To jail a defendant for nonpayment of a fine, R.C. 2947.14 requires the accused be given due process, which includes reasonable notice, advisement of the right to an attorney, and an opportunity to be heard. Judges are directed to determine a defendant’s ability to pay.

The disciplinary counsel argued that for 16 individuals who appeared before Judge Hoover, the judge ignored the R.C. 2947.14 procedures and used threats and coercion to collect payments. The board notes that during Judge Hoover’s disciplinary hearing he admitted he was aware of the statute but deemed it “impractical” and not “an effective tool.”

The board found that by sidestepping the law, Judge Hoover broke four ethics rules each time he put the 16 defendants through his collection process. The judge is accused of not acting in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary; failing to apply the law; performing his duties in a manner that indicates bias or prejudice

Judge Hoover counters that in two cases he failed to follow the law and admits to two ethical violations. He argues that in the other 14 cases, R.C. 2947.14 didn’t apply and he rightfully took action to make individuals pay fines and costs they owed to the court.

Case Illustrates Pattern of Misbehavior, Board Asserts
The board contends that Judge Hoover’s treatment of Douglas Dawson is one of many counts that demonstrates his bias toward vulnerable persons, including those of low socioeconomic status, with mentally illness, and those with drug or alcohol dependence disorder.

In 2019, Dawson pleaded guilty to driving under suspension, which is not a jailable offense. Judge Hoover sentenced Dawson to a $100 fine and court costs that totaled $537. Dawson entered a payment plan and made a $100 payment. Dawson failed to appear for a follow-up hearing and didn’t pay the balance. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

Dawson was arrested later in 2019 and appeared before Judge Hoover. The judge told Dawson, “Takes $507 to get you out, or you’re gonna stay about 10 days.”

Dawson stated he didn’t have the money and that he already had spent one night in jail after being arrested. He said that being jailed was going to mess up his employment. The judge told Dawson he would stay in jail, be credited for $50 a day, and could be released if he paid the fines and costs.

Dawson spent seven days in jail. Because only the nonpayment of fines, not court costs, could result in jail time under state law, the most Dawson should have spent in jail was two days, the board notes. The judge didn’t follow the law because he didn’t notify Dawson that at his court appearance there would be a discussion of placing him in jail for nonpayment, the board notes. Dawson wasn’t told he could have an attorney, and the court didn’t conduct a required assessment of whether Dawson had the ability to pay, all which violated the law, the board concludes.

Judge Defends Actions as ‘Forced Accountability’
In his objections, Judge Hoover states that judges make mistakes, and unfortunately, sometimes a defendant improperly spends time in jail. But cases are appealed all the time, and decisions by judges are reversed, he notes. This doesn’t mean a judge violated ethics rules, he argues. In Dawson’s case, Judge Hoover acknowledged he didn’t have legal authority to jail him, and that was a rule violation for failing to apply the law.

However, Judge Hoover denies his actions were based on any bias against the underprivileged. He notes the disciplinary counsel took 16 cases out of the “hundreds of thousands” he has presided over during his 27 years on the bench to makes its claim of bias. He argues the few cases “don’t show bias, they show forced accountability in one manner or another.”

Judge Hoover notes his practices show he issues low fines and standard costs, and when defendant can’t pay, he offers community service. He gives the offender time to pay, and when they don’t pay the first time, he gives them more time, he states. He argues that allowing defendants to be released early if they paid is not coercion and holding defendants accountable for their prior conduct isn’t coercion.

Disciplinary Counsel Supports Suspension
The disciplinary counsel contends a statement made by Judge Hoover to a defendant captures his judicial philosophy. “If you don’t have any money, then it ain’t going to work out for you today,” the judge said.

The disciplinary counsel accused Judge Hoover of a blind obsession to operate a self-funded municipal court, disregarding all safeguards afforded to defendants. His actions result in a “modern-day debtors’ prison where unsuspecting and unrepresented individuals lost their liberty due to their socioeconomic status.”

The disciplinary counsel argues the board found the evidence supported the judge didn’t follow the law in all 16 cases when he detained people or threatened to detain them until they paid their fines and court costs. The office maintains the two-year suspension “will assist in restoring the public’s confidence in our judicial system.”

– Dan Trevas

Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.

(Mike Frisch)