This rule change adopts an appendix that defines minimum operating standards for municipal courts and their personnel to abide by. Several of these new minimum standards relate to fines and fees practices.
This short documentary film tells the story of two St. Louis women who were unjustly incarcerated because of failure to pay their fines and fees.
The author conducted qualitative research to assess the effect of private probation on people under parole supervision for misdemeanor offenses in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. In some of these states, private parole officers have the authority to control critical aspects of a person’s parole terms.
This report is a culmination of a year of research that involved interviews conducted with 380 people who made contact with systems of justice in eight states and were assessed fines and fees.
This review of law and policy is the first-year report of a five-year study comprising quantitative and qualitative research that provides a detailed understanding of how fines and fees are imposed and enforced across the United States.
In this five-part research paper, Professors from Saint Louis University’s School of Law examine the “economic impact of discriminatory municipal law enforcement” in St. Louis County, Missouri.
Fleming filed writ of habeus corpus alleging he was unlawfully confined because his probation was revoked solely because of his indigency.
This video provides an overview of the history of debtors’ prisons in the U.S. and features compelling commentary from citizens describing how our current system of court fines and fees put them in difficult situations and made them resort to desperate measures for survival.
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.
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.