• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Courtroom5

Be Your Own Lawyer

  • How It Works
  • Legal Tips
    • Access To Justice
    • Affirmative Defenses
    • Discovery
    • Dismissal
    • Legal Research
    • Litigation Strategy
    • Summary Judgment
  • Sign Up
  • Sign In

March 17, 2016 By Sonja Ebron Leave a Comment

Department of Justice Asks Courts to Stop Mugging Their Citizens

Early this week, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to courts nationwide, warning them to end civil enforcement measures that effectively criminalize poverty. According to DoJ, municipal and state courts around the country are maintaining practices that violate the civil rights of their citizens. Too many courts are denying basic access to justice by using fees and fines to force the most vulnerable people into the criminal justice system.

The Dear Colleague Letter, signed by DoJ’s access to justice coordinator and its top civil rights prosecutor, outlined seven practices that need to be halted:

  1. Courts must not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fines or fees without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing that the failure to pay was willful.
  2. Courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants unable to pay fines and fees.
  3. Courts must not condition access to a judicial hearing on prepayment of fines or fees.
  4. Courts must provide meaningful notice and, in appropriate cases, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees.
  5. Courts must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections.
  6. Courts must not employ bail or bond practices that cause indigent defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release.
  7. Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors.

The letter was part of a resource package sent to chief justices and court administrators nationwide, designed to help state and local courts reform long-loved but illegal practices for assessing and collecting civil fines. A best-practices guide on fee collection accompanied the letter, along with a new technical assistance grant program to help courts reform their policies.

This warning to courts comes on the heels of last year’s report on Ferguson, Missouri’s use of citizens as ATMs, with extremely disparate impact on racial minorities. The D0J found that Ferguson’s law enforcement activities were primarily focused on generating revenue for the city. A case in point (pdf):

We spoke, for example, with an African-American woman who has a still-pending case stemming from 2007, when, on a single occasion, she parked her car illegally. She received two citations and a $151 fine, plus fees. The woman, who experienced financial difficulties and periods of homelessness over several years, was charged with seven Failure to Appear offenses for missing court dates or fine payments on her parking tickets between 2007 and 2010. For each Failure to Appear, the court issued an arrest warrant and imposed new fines and fees. From 2007 to 2014, the woman was arrested twice, spent six days in jail, and paid $550 to the court for the events stemming from this single instance of illegal parking. Court records show that she twice attempted to make partial payments of $25 and $50, but the court returned those payments, refusing to accept anything less than payment in full. One of those payments was later accepted, but only after the court’s letter rejecting payment by money order was returned as undeliverable. This woman is now making regular payments on the fine. As of December 2014, over seven years later, despite initially owing a $151 fine and having already paid $550, she still owed $541.

It turns out that some of Ferguson’s illegal practices are widespread, a way for courts to fund their operations on the backs of the poor and powerless. This DoJ effort aims to put a stop to it.

While the letter’s tone is more encouraging than judgmental, it still contains a meaty undercurrent of warning and threat. The Department of Justice routinely investigates state agencies and sues them in federal court when required, as it did recently with Ferguson. (The city quickly settled the lawsuit on DoJ’s terms.)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch had this to say: “The consequences of the criminalization of poverty are not only harmful — they are far-reaching… They not only affect an individual’s ability to support their family, but also contribute to an erosion of our faith in government. One of my top priorities as Attorney General is to help repair community trust where it has frayed, and a key part of that effort includes ensuring that our legal system serves every American faithfully and fairly, regardless of their economic status.”

I’d love to think we at Burlington Avenue were contributing to a solution. Our work to help average people represent themselves in court may one day have an impact on democratizing the courts, but what’s really needed is a culture of respect for citizenship among those who operate our justice system.

We get criticized occasionally for helping people game the system — play the courts, if you will — and some of that is fair. That is part of what we do. But when courts are outright mugging their citizens, the notion that we should play by the rules is foolhardy. What expectation for fairness and justice can people reasonably have for a justice system that needs a civil rights reminder like this DoJ letter? The system is gaming us.

I’m happy to see the Department of Justice take on this problem, but I also recognize we live in strange times. The DoJ asking courts to observe the Constitution is like Congress asking the Fed to maintain a stable monetary system. Oh, right. Strange times. With news of this DoJ letter, I find myself in agreement with Awesomely Luvvie that the country’s operating system is in drastic need of tech support, perhaps even a reboot.

Share your thoughts on the Department of Justice’s effort to stop these illegal court practices in the comments below.

More Like This:

  • If You're A Pro Se Plaintiff, This Manual Is For YouIf You're A Pro Se Plaintiff, This Manual Is For You
  • 31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them
  • Test Your Readiness For CourtTest Your Readiness For Court
  • #BlackLivesMatter = #DefundThePolice#BlackLivesMatter = #DefundThePolice
  • Best Blog Posts For Pro Se Litigants — The 2019 EditionBest Blog Posts For Pro Se Litigants — The 2019 Edition
  • How To Analyze A Civil Case And Craft A Litigation Strategy, Part 2How To Analyze A Civil Case And Craft A Litigation…
  • Did You Come To Appease Or To Conquer? The 5 Types Of Pro Se LitigantsDid You Come To Appease Or To Conquer? The 5 Types…
  • When You Understand Motions And Pleadings You Can Escape Dull Forms and Take Over Your CaseWhen You Understand Motions And Pleadings You Can…

Tagged With: access to justice, constitution, criminal, self-representation

About Sonja Ebron

Sonja Ebron is a co-founder at Courtroom5. She enjoys being underestimated in court and lives to catch a lawyer in a procedural error.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Get Our Free 5-Day Course to Your Inbox

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

We hate spam too. We'll never share your email.

Popular Articles

  • 31 affirmative defenses 31 Affirmative Defenses And How To Assert Them
  • biggest mistakes pro se litigants make 6 Of The Biggest Mistakes Pro Se Litigants Make
  • How to Write a Motion How To Write A Motion--A Guide And Sample Motions For Pro Se Litigants

Popular Tags

access to justice affirmative defenses answer appeal bias Brian Vukadinovich case analysis Case Manager civil legal aid complaint constitution court costs court reporter Courtroom5 criminal discovery elements of a claim eviction evidence hearing how to win in court I Am Not A Lawyer judicial bias jurisdiction Lawyers We Love legal analysis legal argument Legal Bits legal research litigation litigation strategy motion for summary judgment motion to dismiss podcast pro se litigants pro se litigation Richard Zorza rules of civil procedure self-representation self represented litigant settlement Sonja Ebron summary judgment trial unbundled legal services
Follow @Courtroom5Legal
Courtroom5
Courtroom5 @Courtroom5Legal
17 minutes ago
Justice is the antidote to chaos. Happy Martin Luther King Day 2021. #accesstojustice https://t.co/Bspn62idc5
View on Twitter
0
0
Courtroom5
Courtroom5 @Courtroom5Legal
4 days ago
Thanks to @WRAL for naming Courtroom5 a finalist in this year’s Voters Choice Award for most innovative local startup. #WRALVCAs https://t.co/Vde2rnxfQQ
View on Twitter
0
0
Courtroom5
Courtroom5 @Courtroom5Legal
4 days ago
Yes, still true. #accesstojustice https://t.co/D0PgmjNwDr
View on Twitter
Open Hands Legal Svc @openhandslegal
https://t.co/X4xw9pYT1w
1
2
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

© 2021 Courtroom5 | A Techstars Company · My Account
No legal advice offered · No substitute for a lawyer

We use cookies to ensure the best experience on our website. If you continue to browse Courtroom5, we assume this is okay for you.OK