Post-Ferguson Class Action Suits Challenging Fine and Fee Schemes in Missouri
In 2014, when a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri shot and killed Michael Brown, the City of Ferguson erupted in protest and became a national news story overnight. A subsequent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice uncovered a pattern of racially discriminatory practices by the Ferguson Police Department which was rooted in the city’s dependence on the criminal justice system to raise revenue. But this wasn’t simply a Ferguson Problem. Since 2015, there have been a series of class action lawsuits filed against local governments and police departments in Missouri. Below is an overview of these class action suits, their settlement agreements, and any changes to the law that have resulted.
Jenkins v. City of Jennings
Initial Complaint Filed: February 8th, 2015
Permanent Injunction Ordered: September 16th, 2015
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement: December 14th, 2016
Background and Arguments:
The plaintiffs sued the City of Jennings under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as well as the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The plaintiffs claimed that the City of Jennings violated their constitutional rights by imprisoning them for failure to pay the city debts. They alleged the city jailed them in inhumane conditions and without adequate counsel. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the City maintained a policy and practice of jailing residents over unpaid traffic fines, court fees, and other minor offenses. The plaintiffs alleged the City used its municipal court and jail as revenue generators for the city government, based many of its claims on invalid or arbitrary arrest warrants, held inmates in deplorable conditions, and created a hopeless cycle of debt and imprisonment for indigent residents. Before the parties moved to settle, the district court issued a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, requiring the city to comply with the new framework for collecting court debts.
Outcome:
The judge granted final approval of the class action settlement for $4.7 million on December 14, 2016, which required the City to comply with the Permanent Injunction issued by the court. To date, this has been the only case in which a permanent injunction was issued by the court before a settlement was reached.
Summary of Key Provisions of the Permanent Injunction:
- After a person is convicted of an offense, the court must: ask about an individual’s ability to pay. If the person is unable to pay, the court has the following options:
- place the person on a payment plan to be paid out in full within six months of court date, or by a certain specified date;
- place the person on a monthly payment plan to last over a period of six months from the court date, with no interest allowed; or
- allow the individual to complete a financial hardship form, under penalty of perjury, which will enable the judge to suspend payment and satisfy judgment with community service at a fixed hourly rate of at least 10.00 hr.
- In all cases the judge has discretion to reduce fines and costs based on financial condition. A person is presumed indigent if they are determined to be at or below 125% of federal poverty level. If the person is above 125%, the judge must make an individualized assessment of ability to pay.
- The City is to eliminate the Payment docket. If fines and costs go unpaid or are not resolved through community service or waived within six months, the city will refer the debt to a civil debt collector and take no further action in municipal court.
- The City has recalled all “payment-related” warrants issued prior to the time of the lawsuit, has not issued warrants since the lawsuit has been filed, and has dismissed all cases and forgiven all fines and costs due and owing to the City of Jennings imposed on individuals before March of 2011.
- The City will not use separate failure-to-appear charges and will not report the non-appearance of individuals at court dates for license suspensions to the Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri.
- The injunction also requires humane conditions in the Jennings Jail, including access to showers and hygienic products, access to legal materials, medical care, and nutritious foods. No person can be charged money for any time spent in jail or for the provisions of basic needs in jail.
A link to the settlement agreement can be found here.
A link to the permanent injunction issued by the Eastern District of Missouri can be found here.
A link to the initial complaint can be found here.
Webb et al. v. City of Maplewood
Initial Complaint Filed: November 1, 2016
Class Action Settlement Approved: April 5, 2023
Background and Arguments:
The plaintiffs alleged that the City had implemented an extortion scheme against citizens whereby the city’s police would perform unlawful seizures to trap individuals into proceeding through the municipal court system.. The court would then allegedly issue arrest warrants with insurmountable warrant bond fees against individuals who were unable to pay or appear in court. These individuals were ultimately left with the choice to 1) sit in jail for 48 hours, 2) pay the fine which would range anywhere from $300-$500 or 3) hire an attorney. Until one of these three occurred, the warrant would remain in effect and residents were denied requests for information about their case or charge.
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses; under the First and Fourteenth Amendments arguing they were denied access to the courts; and under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because they were denied adequate counsel at hearings in which they individuals were ordered to be imprisoned for their failure to pay.
The plaintiffs also alleged violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights resulting from the court’s issuance of invalid warrants as an “unreasonable seizure without a fair and reliable determination of probable cause.” Additionally, the plaintiffs’ alleged that the defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by threatening individuals with incarceration in order to get them to pay their fines. Finally, the plaintiffs brought two state law claims: the first rendered judgments obtained in violation of due process void and the second was unjust enrichment.
Outcome:
The Judge approved a $3.25 million class action settlement in which the City did not admit fault. The settlement covers more than 7,000 people who were jailed by Maplewood and more 20,000 people who paid fines and fees to the city between November 2011 and November 2021. The Judge also approved $1.08 million in attorneys’ fees and about $132,000 in litigation costs to be paid from the settlement fund.
According to the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, since the lawsuit was filed, Maplewood’s municipal court revenue has decreased by 64 percent and the number of tickets issued decreased by 70 percent in 2022, citing state court data.
A link to the settlement agreement can be found here.
A link to the initial complaint can be found here.
Thomas v. City of St. Ann
Initial Complaint Filed: August 9, 2016
Preliminary Settlement Approval: October 17, 2023
Final Approval Hearing: March 6, 2024
Background and Arguments:
Plaintiff’s claimed that the municipality imprisoned people for a failure to pay debts owed for minor offenses without inquiring as to their ability to pay in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; failed to provide adequate legal counsel at hearings in which indigent people were imprisoned in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; incarcerated people indefinitely and without adequate procedural protections in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; sought, issued, and served warrants without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; and imposed unduly restrictive methods of debt collection, through incarceration and the threat of incarceration, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Outcome:
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2016. On December 2, 2016, in response to the amended complaint, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
A federal judge preliminarily approved a $3.125 million class-action settlement in which the City of St. Ann denied fault but claimed the agreement would “avoid the further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation,” freeing it from any further potential claims. In an Oct. 17, 2023 order, the Eastern District of Missouri set a final approval hearing for March 6, 2024. In the meantime, the Plaintiffs attorneys say more than 35,000 people could make claims under the settlement.
A link to the Settlement agreement and related documents can be found here.
A link to the Amended Complaint can be found here.
Baker v. Florissant
Initial Complaint Filed: October 31, 2016
Preliminary Settlement Approved: January 4, 2024
Final Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for: May 13, 2024
Background and Arguments:
The Plaintiffs sued the City of Florissant, MO under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Plaintiffs alleged that the City held individuals in jail in “grotesque, dangerous, inhumane conditions” until all fines and fees set by the City were paid – usually by friends or relatives. Further, they alleged that the amount paid was arbitrarily and significantly reduced when the City recognized that they are unable to profit from the plaintiffs’ detention. Also, they alleged that the City issued and enforced arrest warrants for the plaintiffs’ failure to appear in court to pay their fines. The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment stating that their rights were violated by the City, injunctive relief permanently enjoining the City from enforcing these unconstitutional policies and practices, and compensatory relief for damages suffered as a result of the City’s unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, as well as of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Outcome:
A federal judge approved a preliminary settlement of nearly $3 million, with a final approval of the settlement set for May 13, 2024.
There was no publicly available information about what the settlement required the city to do in response, but a local news source quoted the attorney’s for the plaintiffs saying the settlement requires Florissant to:
- Permanently forgive all unpaid fees from traffic violations between Oct. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2019
- Eliminate the use of “bond schedules”
- Provide all arrested persons with unconditional access to indigency forms
- A timely indigency hearing no later than 24 hours after person is booked
- Uphold the right to counsel for individuals held in jail and brought before a municipal judge
A link to the court order approving the settlement agreement can be found here.
A link to the initial complaint can be found here.
Davis v. Normandy
Initial Complaint Filed: September 10, 2018
Settlement Approved: September 14, 2022
Background and Arguments:
Plaintiffs filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action against the City of Normandy alleging the municipality’s policies and practices violated their rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, Count I alleged the City imprisoned Plaintiffs and/or threatened to imprison them for their inability to pay fines; Count II alleged the City failed to provide adequate counsel; Count III alleged the City detained Plaintiffs for indefinite periods of time until they made arbitrarily and inconsistently established cash payments; Count IV alleged the City issued invalid arrest warrants related to unpaid fines; and Count V alleged the City imprisoned Plaintiffs and/or threatened to imprison them in an effort to collect debts.
Outcome:
Much of the litigation in this case was focused on certifying class action status for a collection of the residents in Normandy who were directly affected by the criminal legal system’s practice of unconstitutionally jailing individuals who lacked an ability to pay court debts. Once the class was certified by the court, the parties quickly moved to settle. Most notably, the settlement agreement and the subsequent order released by the court stipulate that the Defendants in this case (The City of Normandy) is “not liable for any of the claims and denies any wrongdoing or liability of any kind to plaintiffs or to any member of the certified class.” Ultimately, the City agreed to pay out close to 1.3 Million dollars to eligible residents.
A link to the settlement agreement can be found here.
A link to the initial complaint can be found here.
Thomas v. City of Edmundson
Initial Complaint Filed: December 12, 2018
Settlement Approval: January 3, 2023
Background Arguments:
Plaintiffs filed this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Edmundson, claiming it had a deliberate policy that violates their constitutional rights. Count I alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for imprisoning Plaintiffs for inability to pay; Count II alleged violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for failure to provide adequate counsel; Count III alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for subjecting Plaintiffs to indefinite and arbitrary detention; Count IV alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for issuances of invalid warrants; and Count V alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for the use of threats of incarceration to collect debts.
Outcome:
Like in the Normandy case, once the court certified the , the parties quickly moved to settle. Most notably, the settlement agreement and the subsequent court order stipulate that the Defendants in this case (The City of Edmundson) is “not liable for any of the claims and denies any wrongdoing or liability of any kind to plaintiffs or to any member of the certified class”. Ultimately, the City agreed to pay out close to 400,000 dollars to 10,000 eligible residents.
A link to the settlement agreement can be found here.
A link to the initial complaint can be found here.
Fant v. City of Ferguson
Still Active in Litigation as of December 31,2023
Initial Complaint Filed: February 8, 2015
Although this case was one of the first to be filed after the Ferguson investigation, it remains pending and we will update this summary when a resolution is reached.