Ability to Pay Archives - Page 19 of 39 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Catherine Harper, et al v. Professional Probation Services, Inc.

Defendants in the Gardendale Municipal Court are placed on probation when they are unable to pay court fines and fees in full. Professional Probation Services, Inc. (PPS) is the sole probation provider through a contract with the City and the Municipal Court judge. PPS charges a $40 monthly fee which is paid before the court’s fines and fees.

Digital Jail: How Electronic Monitoring Drives Defendants Into Debt

This article describes the fundamental issues with electronic monitoring by private companies through the experience a St. Louis, Missouri resident.

Brucker et al. v. The City of Doraville

Plaintiffs argue that by budgeting for revenue from fines and fees, Doraville creates a perverse incentive for the city’s police, prosecutors, and judges.

Court-Ordered Community Service: A National Perspective

Community service mandates date back to the late 1960s as an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent crimes. It has since evolved into a component of monetary sanctions or probation rather …

Briggs v. Montgomery

This case challenges a marijuana diversion program operated by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. People who can afford to pay finish the program in 3 months. Those who can’t pay must stay in the program for at least six months or until they pay the fees owed, even if they have satisfied every program requirement other than payment.

Inherently Unstable: The History and Future of Reliance on Court-Imposed Fees in the State of Texas

In this article, Todd Jermstad argues that relying on court-imposed fines, fees, and costs to fund the court system in Texas is not financially feasible.

Fowler v. Benson

Plaintiffs allege that the Michigan Department of State’s automatic suspension of driver’s license of persons who owe court fines and fees, regardless of their ability to pay violates due process and equal protection.

Ficken v. City of Dunedin et al

Plaintiff James Ficken had grass over ten inches for about eight weeks during the summer of 2018 while he was out of town settling his mother’s estate. Without warning, he was hit with daily fines totaling $29,000. As a result of his inability to pay the $29,000 in fines, the City placed two liens on his property. Mr. Ficken requested a rehearing or reconsideration of the fines, but his request was rejected without explanation. He now faces imminent foreclosure because he does not have the money to satisfy the liens.

Johnson, et al. v. Jessup

Plaintiffs allege that the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles automatically revokes the drivers’ licenses of people who do not pay their traffic tickets in full within forty days.

New Data: Low Incomes – But High Fees – For People On Probation

The imposition of unaffordable probation fees punishes poverty and places them at risk of being jailed when they cannot pay. Most states charge monthly probation fees, while others use “reasonableness” …