This case challenges the imposition of a surcharge by the City of Missoula that is not authorized by state law.
Fleming filed writ of habeus corpus alleging he was unlawfully confined because his probation was revoked solely because of his indigency.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Sherwood’s “hot check” court routinely jailed indigent persons unable to pay court fines and fees without inquiry into their ability to pay.
Orange County Probation Department sent a bill of $16,372 to a juvenile’s mother for reimbursement of reasonable costs of support while her son was in detention. The County sought $23.90 for each day of detention and $2199 in legal expenses. Doing her best to pay the debt, Rivera sold her house and paid $9508. Unable to pay the rest, she was served, and a default judgment of $9905 was issued against her for failure to appear. Ms. Rivera eventually filed for bankruptcy.
In violation of due process rights, the City of Florissant jails people unable to pay court fines and fees without any inquiry into their ability to pay.
The Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles referred people who owed court fines and fees for traffic tickets to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) without any inquiry into the individual’s ability to pay. A referral to the DMV resulted in the suspension of the person’s driver’s license.
Fifteen percent of the Bogalusa City Court’s revenue is derived from court fines and fees. Judge Black gives indigent defendants the options of jail for nonpayment of fines and fees or the payment of an illegal $50 extension fee to buy additional time to pay their court debt.
Summary of the cause of action Solano County Superior Court routinely informed the DMV of persons who fail to pay their court fines and fees or fail to appear to …
This case challenged the City of El Paso’s payment policy for Class C misdemeanors – usually parking tickets.
This case challenged the constitutionality of a $3 surcharge imposed on litigants in municipal court for the sheriff’s retirement fund. The trial court dismissed for lack of standing. The appellants claimed to have standing as taxpayers, administrators, and as one who paid the surcharge.