MNCIS Uniform Court Practice (UCP)
Summary Information |
|
UCP Number: 131 |
|
UCP Description: Determine what the status of a warrant activity should be (active or inactive). |
Line of Business: All |
Urgency: High |
Status: Review at 8-14-03 Steering – carried over to 09-11-03 meeting |
Contact: Nancy Crandall |
|
Business Issue |
|
A status needs to be associated with a warrant based on the type of warrant it is. |
|
Recommended Process Change |
|
All unsigned warrants will be considered as “inactive” and all signed warrants will be considered “active” until the warrant is quashed or recalled at which time it will be changed back to “inactive”. |
|
Examples |
|
A warrant may be printed from Odyssey and await signature during which time the status would be inactive. In TCIS the same idea exists by requiring an issue date and a return date to determine if the warrant is active or not. Hennepin systems also use the concept of “active” and “inactive”. |
|
Research Conducted |
|
In both TCIS and Hennepin systems a warrant does not show as “issued” until it has been signed. |
|
Options Considered |
|
Have the clerk decide the status and manually enter Have the system determine the proper status based on the warrant type |
|
Rationale |
|
Odyssey requires the association of “active” and “inactive” with all warrant types. |
|
Impact Within Judicial Branch |
|
N/A |
|
Impact On Other Agencies |
|
More accurately and consistently reflect the correct status of a warrant in order to lessen the chance of an inactive warrant being acted upon. |
|
Guideline Evaluation (Required for B and C Level Changes Only) |
|
Improve overall quality of justice and public safety Improve efficiency, convenience, certainty and service to those impacted by court’s case management |
|
Communication & Implementation Strategy |
|
Will be incorporated in user training documentation. Tyler Technologies will configure the system. |
Tags: (ucp) summary, number, court, uniform, mncis, (ucp), information, practice, summary