Right to Counsel Archives - Page 5 of 7 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Confronting Criminal Justice Debt: A Guide for Policy Reform

This Guide for Policy Reform by Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Policy Program is organized into four issue areas: conflicts of interest, poverty penalties and poverty traps (when people are forced to pay more or face harsher sanctions because of their poverty), the ability-to-pay determination, and transparency and accountability. Under each of these sections, a description of the problem is followed by legislative, judicial, and executive reform suggestions for people at the state level to use and incorporate into their efforts.

Alvarado v. Superior Court of California

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.

Canaan v. City of El Paso

This case challenged the City of El Paso’s payment policy for Class C misdemeanors – usually parking tickets.

United States Department of Justice “Dear Colleague” Letter

In March 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and Office for Access to Justice sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to State Court Administrators and Chief Justices in each state clarifying the legal framework that governs the enforcement of fines and fees, including the importance of procedural protections and, in appropriate cases, the right to counsel.

Colorado HB 16-1309: Concerning a defendant’s right to counsel in certain cases considered by municipal courts

This bill requires the Municipal Court to appoint counsel in certain circumstances, including if a defendant is in custody or faces the possibility of custody for nonpayment of fines and fees.

Kneisser v. McInerney et al.

Plaintiff, a 20 year old college student, was sentenced to jail because he was unable to pay a $206 statutory fine with $33 in court costs for throwing a cigarette butt out of his car window.

Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families

This report is the result of a collaborative research project from 20 community-based organizations that studied the costs of incarceration on families across 14 states.

Michigan Supreme Court Ability to Pay Workgroup: Tools and Guidance for Determining and Addressing an Obligor’s Ability to Pay

Over the course of six months in 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court Ability to Pay workgroup examined the issue of ability to pay and published a report with tools, best practices, and recommendations for judges and court staff around nonpayment incarceration.

Jenkins v. City of Jennings

The complaint alleged that impoverished city residents were jailed solely because of their inability to pay court fines and fees from traffic and other municipal violations.

Thompson v. Dekalb County

Mr. Thompson was jailed for five days due to his inability to pay fines and fees. He was not informed of his right to request court-appointed counsel, and was ultimately not provided with counsel, nor a pre-deprivation indigency hearing prior to being jailed.