Oklahoma Rep. Humphrey says DAs may be illegally collecting money, asks AG to investigate

A state representative is asking Attorney General Gentner Drummond to investigate the collection of probation fees by Oklahoma's district attorneys. That request, however, drew a harsh rebuke from the chairman of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council.

Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, sent a letter to Drummond Monday requesting the investigation. In a media statement announcing the request, Humphrey said his own inspection of the process "discovered issues that appear very worrisome and possibly illegal."

"My fear is that the district attorney’s across the state have illegally collected probation fees for approximately 11 years," Humphrey said. "The fees have never been applied to the actual act of supervision. If my calculation is correct, that would mean district attorneys illegally have collected approximately $209 million."

Phil Bacharach, a spokesman for Attorney General Gentner Drummond, confirmed the attorney general's office had received Humphrey's letter. "The Attorney General has received the chairman's letter and will review," Bacharach said.

Paid by those who have been released and sentenced to probation, state probation fees are almost always paid to the district attorney's office. In fact, a link on the DA Council's website allows the $40 per month payment to be made via credit card. Several state agencies, including the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, the Administrative Office of the Courts and district attorneys offices across the state rely in some part on fees to fund operations.

However, for several years now, the fees have generated controversy.

In his letter to Drummond, Humphrey wrote about a dispute between Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn and Special Judge Steve Stice involving the probation fee. "The basis of the complaint was that Judge Stice refused to place a DUI offender on DA probation," Humphrey wrote.

Even though the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided the case in Stice's favor, Humphrey wrote, "the district attorney’s continued to collect probation fees and use the fees to fund their offices."

Humphrey said the state's district attorneys were directly instructed by the court that fees must be used for the actual act of supervision. "The DA’s knowingly, willfully and intentionally ignored the court's orders and illegally collected and misused probation fees," he wrote.

Christopher Boring, chairman of the state's District Attorney's Council, responded to Humphrey's complaints in a terse, three-page letter sent to Drummond Tuesday. In a media statement accompanying his letter, Boring called Humphrey's accusations "willful neglect and completely beneath the dignity of the Oklahoma House of Representatives."

"The District Attorneys Council has an open-door policy with legislators, and together, we have atrack record of success in creating good public policy that benefits Oklahomans and the criminal justice system," Boring's statement said. "To be blindsided by this letter and for him to be airing accusations such as these in the media is a disappointment. We hope that the attorney general will review both letters and bring a quick resolution to this matter so our district attorneys can get back to protecting Oklahomans and upholding the rule of law.”

In his letter to Drummond, Boring said Humphrey made many statements that weren't supported by facts or law. "His accusations are erroneous and an attempt to discredit the hard work of not only the hardworking district attorneys across the state but also the leadership of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Senate," Boring's letter said.

Boring wrote that Humphrey's examination of DA probation offices "makes it clear that Chairman Humphrey is unaware or misunderstands the legislative history regarding district attorney supervised probation."

He said the case Humphrey referenced involved a private supervision company.

"Supervision was conducted by a private supervision company, much like the private supervision company Chairman Humphrey used to run," Boring wrote. "That private supervision company provided supervision and charged its own fee. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that with those particular facts, the district attorney should not be able to college a supervision fee. The court did not believe that both the district attorney and the private supervision company could charge its fee. Since DA Mashburn did not have a probation officer, the court also found that the other duties of a district attorney's office were insufficient to constitute 'supervision' under (state statute) 991d."

That case, Boring wrote, had no impact on the many other offices that did maintain an active probation office.

Boring told Drummond that he met with Humphrey 10 days before Humphrey sent his letter and news release and at that time Humphrey failed to mention any concerns about probation fees. "This appears to be nothing more than a calculated attack on the governor, the leadership in the legislature, law enforcement and prosecutors across the state," Boring wrote.

Humphrey said the issue is whether probation fees collected by district attorneys must be used for the actual act of supervision during the actual period of time the offender is on supervision, or whether the fee can be collected by the DAs if a third party is used to oversee probation. He said he also takes issue with how the fees are routed through several different funds, which he said "was akin to money laundering."

Humphrey's letter also asked Drummond what was the probability that the prosecutorial arm of the government has "knowingly, willfully and intentionally ignored a judgment of the court?"

"Oklahoma has taken money from offenders and offered no behavioral change, no treatment and no supervision in return. The lack of criminal supervision has harmed all Oklahomans," he said. "From a layman’s viewpoint, he wrote, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck."

Humphrey urged Drummond to take action. "It is time that Oklahoma stop forcing district attorneys to fund their office through illegal schemes and time that Oklahoma adopt a real plan to completely reform the Oklahoma Criminal Justice System," he wrote.

State lawmakers will have the opportunity to address the issue in February, when the Legislature returns for the 2024 legislative session.

This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma Rep. draws criticism after claiming DAs illegally collect fees