Lunsford: Budget cut may halt some cases
Denise Lunsford
Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney Denise Lunsford says her office needs $32,000 — and if it doesn’t get it, she might stop prosecuting misdemeanors such as drunken driving and domestic assault.
Lunsford made the plea to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday after her prosecution team received notice of a $32,000 budget cut from the state.
“Within the next 10 months, I have to find $32,000 in my budget unless the county is willing to increase our funding,” Lunsford said, adding she might be stuck with no other option than eliminating the prosecution of “some, if not all, misdemeanor cases.”
The request came amid more gloomy news of declining revenues in the county. On top of that, local officials have to decide whether to pick up new tabs to make up for state funding cuts.
“It’s another area where the state cuts expenses and drops it down to the locality,” said Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker, adding that he doesn’t think the county should be quick to cover the state government’s funding obligations.
Lunsford said that the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office is only obligated statutorily to prosecute felonies such as “murders, robberies and rapes,” adding that county dollars allow the prosecution of misdemeanors.
“This is a local issue,” Lunsford said.
If her department is hit with more state funding cuts, Lunsford said, she wants the county to fill those gaps, too.
If the county doesn’t fill the $32,000 shortfall, Lunsford said, “Our office may or may not be there to prosecute those cases that you find so important.”
Lunsford listed DUI, domestic assault and underage possession of alcohol as examples of crimes that might not be prosecuted in Albemarle if the local government doesn’t provide the funding.
County Executive Robert W. Tucker Jr. said county staff would work with Lunsford and look for ways to give the department more money.
Supervisors have also complained that the Virginia General Assembly isn’t fulfilling its obligation to fund other needs such as transportation projects, leaving county officials contemplating whether to fund them using local dollars — possibly through tax increases.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
factfinder - isn’t it true that by statute she has to prosecute felonies and in her descretion can prosecute misdemeanors. i’m assuming here that if this further cut means she loses support to adequately prepare for those cases - she isn’t legally obligated to do so. in my search for the facts it appears as if she has suffered cuts from both ends - the state and the county. most county budgets get hit just the once - is that correct? is the office a county office or a state office? is she getting cut on both sides? i can only speak for my office - if a position was cut and the remainder of us were asked to assume the duties of a lost positon for the same or less money - i’m not sure how that would sit with me either. I guess something would have to give. my other assumption is that maybe she’s looking forward and realizes the state will probably make further cuts down the road as well as the county.
For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume the CA office gets the money. They’ll continue to plead down child molestation and child abuse cases and if they don’t Cheryl Higgins will continue to ignore or exclude whatever evidence she wants and/or dish out slaps on the wrist. Unfortunately for Albemarle County, Lunsford and Higgins have risen to their level of incompetence.
Does the county subsidize the CA’s office now with county funds? If so, how much? Also, if Lundsford does receive any county funding and/or county-paid medical and dental benefits, how can she refuse to prosecute county misdemeanor cases because the state cut back funds while the county is meeting its obligation.
These seems to be something wrong with the system.
Just why is the expensive CA office involved with such minor issues. Issues which the arresting officer and his superiors could handle in court.
There seems to be unneccessary spending of tax payer money for a politicans grandstanding and re-election.
Just maybe the budget cuts will get some people out of old habits and do some creating.
What none of the news outlets are saying is that the Commonwealth’s Attorney announcing that misdemeanors will not be prosecuted by her office does not mean that these cases will not go to court. Offenders would still be arrested and go to court. The difference would be that the arresting officer or victim, in the case of a warrant being obtained for an offense such as shoplifting, etc., would go before the judge and have the case tried without the benefit of the CA’s legal advice.
This happens all of the time for cases such as trespassing, underage possession of alcohol, and others.
I wouldn’t give her the money just because of her strong arm tactics. Please, how do you NOT prosecute those crimes and if she chooses not to, let’s elect someone who will find a way.
This is a much deeper problem. They tend to prosecute ones they can win to make the ststisics look good even though it is expensive and a deal could (and should) have been struck for a lesser offense. They punish people who make dumb “mistakes” instead of offering probation before judgment and giving people a chance to redeem themselves through cmmunity service.
They also are using the shortfall as a scare tactic to get the money.
The proesecuters office needs an audit to look at how much money is wasted proesecuting people who are very unlikely to reoffend. Most of these people would be happy to cut a community service deal which wouldn’t require supervised probation etc. (but I wonder if the Probation officers budget is someone elses problem and thats why they don’t seem to care)
It seems to me that they have already started punting on prosecuting cases that are important to US! How about the weak plea deal on the Child Porn case with Rev. Briehl? Why not cut $32,000 out of the budget for stop light cameras or funding for cameras on the downtown mall?
vgq etc -
That was my kind of my point originally. My criticism was mainly of the article, and its lack of detail, some of which you have filled in, but much is still missing. What is the budget for that office? How specifically will it be impacted by being $32,000 short? If no prosecutor loses their job, why would certain crimes (or any crime) not continue to be prosecuted? So, am I to assume that the office cannot maintain its staffing levels due to the cuts? Just looking for details here. It’d be nice if the paper would provide them if it’s going to publish an article on the topic. This kind of article full of holes just perpetuates the ignorance.
FYI to anyone who wasn’t in the BOS meeting on Wedneday – they declared October Domestic Violence Awareness month and then Sally started yammering about the noise ordinance AND THAT is what Ms. Lunsford was recalling when she mentioned things that are of apparent importance to “you” the BOS and which misdemeanors could possibly not be prosecuted. If they weren’t important to her then she wouldn’t have prosecuted the nearly 7 thousand misdemeanor cases she has since taking office on a budget that has only decreased since she’s gotten there (if you care to follow the County Budgeting processes at all). I guess sometimes you have to say enough is enough. No one in the County has gotten raises in 2 years and they keep making them reduce, reduce, reduce. Yet the BOS gets a big plush retreat, Sally just got back from Italy and 30k was earmarked for upgrading the County website. Yes, I’m bothered by a lot of things…the article…the possibility of not having those kinds of cases prosecuted in my community but most of all….I’m bothered by ignorance!
Advertisement