As a result of a settlement agreement in Martinez, et al. v. Astrue, which should soon be approved by the court, this Emergency Message (EM) provides new instructions ... Martinez challenged the agency’s policy and procedures in applying non payment actions to fugitive felons and non-selection of fugitive felons as representative payees. ...
Effective immediately, SSA policy is to suspend or deny Title II and Title VIII benefits or Title XVI payments, and to prohibit an individual from serving as a representative payee only if the individual’s outstanding felony warrant was issued for one of the following three offenses:
- Escape (offense code 4901),
- Flight to Avoid prosecution, confinement, etc. (offense code 4902), and
- Flight-Escape (offense code 4999). ...
Identification of individuals affected by the Martinez settlement will be done centrally and appropriate notices released.
This is a big step forward. Social Security had interpreted the fugitive felon provision in an extremely expansive way. Congress thought they were denying benefits to murderers and rapists on the lam, but many individuals were denied benefits even though they had no idea that there was an outstanding warrant for their arrest. Many of the alleged felonies were decades old and quite minor. Many, perhaps most, of those caught up in this had never been convicted. Records concerning the charges have often been unavailable. Claimants have been put in the difficult position of convincing a busy prosecutor to clear their name. The fugitive felon provisions fall into the "It sounded like a good idea at the time" category.
6 comments:
Minor felonies? Please.
Fugitive felon policy is still a good idea.
Wrong. The fugitive felon policy reflects the overall problem this country has with incarceration. Too many people are incarcerated and then released on parole for minor charges, such as drug possession without intent to sell. Many of those people are mentally handicapped and don't understand the requirements of parole. They miss a few meetings and a warrant is issued. Their benefits are taken away without any due process, especially given their mental capacity and ability to understand what's confronting them. So they lose benefits and become dependent on family, provided they have family. Spoken by someone with first hand experience with the situation.
umm this provision only applies to selection of rep pye. beneficiaries that have an outstanding warrant will still continue to have thier benefits suspended.
anonymous #3, it applies to beneficiaries as well. The article states "Applying non-payment actions to fugitive felons, AND non-selection of fugitive felons as rep payees."
That is referring to non payment of the felons themselves. Under the settlement the beneficiaries will not be suspended anymore unless the warrant is for a VOP or one of the 3 specific felony offense codes.
I say great. We should only be suspending fugitive felons who are actually fugitives, and not people who are too poor or sick to deal with a years-old warrant in another state.
In many jurisdictions, a probation violation for a misdemeanor conviction is a felony. A lot of people are homeless, change addresses and so forth, miss their probation appointments, and become fleeing felons. Anonymous #2 is correct in saying that this practice is perfectly legal and perfectly stupid. As I read this change in policy, the applicability of the fleeing felon provisions is now limited in scope to felony warrants for serious violations of law, escape from incarceration, interstate flight to escape prosecution, and the like. So, benes with an outstanding warrant will *not* have their checks stopped. Good change.
Nancy,
The settlement doesn't affect agency handling of probation/parole violators. As a result, those folks with probation violations for a misdemeanor conviction are still probation violators subject to suspension. I predict courts will begin charging as many folks as necessary as probation violators because they can get them to pay their past due fines this way.
Post a Comment