City requests DPS investigate courts’ financial handlings

City officials have requested the Department of Public Safety conduct an investigation into the handling of finances at the municipal and justice courts in Maricopa.

An independent auditing firm hired by the city conducted a financial review in December at the courts, 19955 N. Wilson Ave. In response to the review’s findings, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an administrative order Thursday that Pinal County Superior Court’s presiding judge Stephen McCarville take over the day-to-day operations of the courts.

According to the order, the review revealed the courts “failed to make regular daily deposits, which resulted in the discovery of cash and checks in unsecured areas within the courthouse.”

According to a city press release sent out Tuesday, Maricopa has requested DPS conduct an investigation “to determine if criminal charges are warranted.”

Heather Murphy, spokeswoman for the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts, said Monday one person was no longer employed, but did not have more information on the employee or the circumstances in which his or her employment ended.

InMaricopa.com has requested a copy of the review through a public records request.

Tuesday’s press release stated: “The city will continue to work closely with the Arizona Supreme Court, the Pinal County Superior Court and the Department of Public Safety to ensure strong polices, identified protocols and protected systems are put in place to ensure monies collected are handled appropriately.”

The Supreme Court order also stated the state treasurer’s office did not receive any money from the municipal court for nine months in 2013 and one month in 2012.

“Both courts also delayed disbursing bond and restitution payments and processing mail-in and online payments,” the order states.

City officials confirmed local Judge Scott Sulley is still acting as Maricopa’s magistrate. The presiding judge of the municipal court is appointed by council.

Murphy explained Monday the steps taken by the high court described in the administrative order are part of standard operating procedure whenever questions are raised about a court’s finances or operations.