Group claims fee scheme forces those awaiting trial into poverty

A possible class-action lawsuit filed in federal court against Ravalli County claims that officials there have run what amounts to debtor’s prison that preys on indigent and poor people, making it more likely they’ll reoffend or stay in poverty.

Meanwhile, attorneys for the county say the lawsuit is nothing more than a clever parsing centering on bail, and fees and charges assessed by a jail-diversion program are legal because they are contractual and treat all residents the same, regardless of economic standing. Moreover, it said that judges and some public officials named in the lawsuit should be immune, because state law grants immunity to those who are performing their duties.

A Washington-D.C.-based law group, Equal Justice Under the Law, as well as Upper Seven Law firm in Montana have filed the case in the Missoula division of federal court. They’ve said that officials who run the jail, the county commissioners and the judges are part of scheme that can charge those awaiting trial, but not convicted, more than a car payment or rent per month just to stay out of jail. Lawyers said that authorities in Ravalli County threaten to put those charged but not convicted back in jail for lack of payment. And finally, the practice is akin to charging bail repeatedly.

Economic Catch-22

The lawsuit filed by a group of people who have used the jail diversion program said that it is an economic Catch-22 designed to make them fail.

In Montana, those charged with crimes are entitled to a bail hearing. Once a bail amount is set, a person can, if they can afford it, bond out. However, Ravalli County employs a “jail diversion” program, which it says is a result of court orders. When bail is set, judges and justices of the peace often attach “conditions of bail.” Those conditions often include prohibition against drugs or alcohol, especially if those are related to the charges.

Ravalli County then charges those on jail diversion programs for monitoring and testing for substances like drugs and alcohol, as well as charging for supervision. Those fees are charged in addition to bail and have recurring charges. The lawsuit states that sometimes a suspect may be free on bail for months, if not years, before his or her case is resolved. As they remain free, some of them face hundreds of dollars in recurring fees.

The case said that fees are never returned if the person is found not guilty.

“The conditions of the county-wide program also erode existing financial stability while making it exceedingly difficult to find or maintain employment, yet pre-trial arrestees are under constant threat of incarceration for failure to pay,” the lawsuit said. “Meanwhile, the conditions and attendant fees push vulnerable pre-trial arrestees into deeper poverty, cause homelessness and otherwise inflict damage.”

One of the plaintiffs in the case was required to submit to a breathalyzer test three times a day, every day, seven-days-a-week. If she missed a test, she would responsible for a drug test, which cost between $35 and $50. This went on for a year-and-a-half, the lawsuit said.

The same woman was charged $55 per month in supervision fees and $270 a month in alcohol monitoring fees.

“Paying these fees while on a fixed income, the plaintiff could not afford her own housing and other necessary expenses including food and gas. She became homeless and struggled to get away from her abusive partner, who used the Jail Diversion Program as leverage over her,” the lawsuit stated.

Another plaintiff had been ordered released as well and paid bail, but Ravalli County ordered him to pay an additional $600 in pre-trial fees.

“He was forced to remain jailed for an extra week before he managed to gather the money to buy his freedom,” the lawsuit said, noting that his monthly fees totaled $640.

Still another different plaintiff was jailed twice for non-payment of “pre-trial fees.”

Another plaintiff who was homeless was not released without an ankle monitor.

“(Ravalli County) demanded more than $1,000 as a ‘deposit’ on the ankle monitor that was not court-mandated because he is homeless,” the lawsuit said. “While the (county) eventually relented as to the ‘deposit,’ because of these demands based on his homelessness, he spent additional weeks in jail after the court ordered his release and he paid his bail.”

Constance Van Kley of Upper Seven Law said that for a person who makes an average wage, an additional $600 per month would be difficult.

“That’s childcare or more than a car payment,” Van Kley said. “For these clients, just out of jail, everything is already hanging by a thread, but now you have a question about stable housing, whether they can afford food and can they find a stable job on this program.”

Mitchell Young, a lawyer representing Ravalli County, said that it is simply following the orders of the judges and charging for fees it incurs.

“The county sets fees for the services, provides the services ordered by the courts, and reports non-payment of the fees to the court,” the response argues. “Plaintiffs allege that the county, acting through Sheriff (Stephen) Holton, threatens to return them to jail if they fall behind on their fees; however, plaintiffs in the next paragraph acknowledge that it is the District and Justice Court judges who actually revoke bail for non-payment of fees.”

Mitchell said that fees are set based on services and what the judges order are simply passed onto the plaintiffs.

“Evidence of discriminatory intent is entirely lacking,” the county’s response said. “Recouping costs associated with the provision of a government service is a rational basis for imposing fees. Because the county has a rational basis for imposing pretrial service fees, and because plaintiffs offer no proof that such fees are intended to discriminate against indigent persons, plaintiffs fail to state an equal protection claim.”

Moreover, Young argues that the lawsuit may come down to a misunderstanding that the fees for the diversion are really just a part of bail.

“While plaintiffs attempt to artificially separate the two procedures, pretrial service requirements are simply conditions attached to a criminal defendant’s bail,” the county’s response said. “If a court may impose monetary bail as a condition of release, it is not clear why a court may not also order release conditions which impose a monetary burden.”

Constitutional rights

The lawsuit states that the county is violating the due process and equal protection rights of the plaintiffs. They’re asking the court to certify it as a class-action case.

“Plaintiffs and other class members will be irreparably harmed because…they will continue to be subject to wealth-based imprisonment, job and income loss, homelessness and other forms of instability caused by the … pre-trial fee scheme,” the suit said.

Quoting a Montana State Supreme Court case, attorneys for the plaintiffs said that the county may not “presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”

“(Ravalli County) imposes these fees with no end in sight. Unlike bail which, once posted, is satisfied, pre-trial fees remain ongoing until the (county) says otherwise,” the lawsuit said. “Pre-trial arrestees are neither credited for fees in cases of ultimate guilt nor refunded where charges are dismissed or an acquittal is obtained.”

The lawsuit also accuses the county of knowing that the plaintiffs are poor, but taking advantage of them anyway, essentially holding their freedom for ransom money.

“The resulting debtors’ prison deprive pre-trial arrestees of their freedom because they are poor. Defendants know indigent pre-trial arrestees cannot pay these fees because they qualify for a public defender, yet this information is never applied to exempt arrestees from paying fees or considered when Defendants incarcerate arrestees for non-willful non-payment of fees.”

The courts, not the county

Young, the lawyer for Ravalli County, said that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is misdirected. Their concern or matter should be taken up with the judiciary because the county is simply following what judges order. However, the suit also notes that judges are immune from prosecution when conducting cases in their official capacity.

“The court has complete discretion to … amend bond conditions, revoke release on bail or impose any other bail condition it deems appropriate,” the lawsuit said. “It is the authority of the court acting pursuant to Montana law that compels those deprivations.”