Authored By: Rob Mohr
Civil rights groups Public Justice and the ACLU of Iowa, in tandem with law firms Fredrikson & Byron, PA, and the Frerichs Law Office, filed a lawsuit on May 13th in U.S. District Court based on the Black Hawk County’s Sheriff Office procedure of requiring incarcerated individuals to sign a “Confession of Judgment” before their release. This document, which the plaintiffs have called unconstitutional, binds the signer to pay room and board for their time in jail and other fees.
Leticia Roberts, one of the individuals the suit was launched on behalf of, signed the agreement two years ago and has been unable to afford the $730 bill she was given. The sheriff’s office is also accused of using the estimated $300,000 in yearly revenue from this practice to fund a shooting range, laser tag, and ice cream and cotton candy machine rentals. Roberts said, “As a mom, it makes me upset because that is money that could be going towards feeding my children. But instead, it was put towards things such as cotton candy and ice cream machines for ‘fun.’”
Other counties in Iowa and around the country charge these fees in a practice known as “pay-to-stay.” However, Black Hawk County’s fees are considerably higher than those of other counties, and the debtors do not have an opportunity to appear in court, where a judge could reduce or eliminate the fees.
The plaintiffs claim the sheriff’s department is violating due process in collecting the money and that their freedom to spend the money collected on what they decide is a conflict of interest. Charles Moore, a staff attorney for Public Justice’s Debtor Prison Project, called the pay-to-stay laws “bad policy.” Moore continued: “…the sheriff decides who owes money and how much they owe without any court ever reviewing those decisions. He acts as the judge, jury, and debt collector. It’s a classic conflict of interest.”
According to the ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Bettis Austen, “…the sheriff knows that the confessions of judgment result in many people owing money that judge would never have made them pay, given their low incomes. He is aware the court has a process involving a judge to prevent taking money from people who can’t afford it.” Furthermore, Austen claimed the county board of supervisors was aware of the issue and had questioned the use of the funds obtained through the protocol.
Thanks to Public Justice and their allies for fighting against systemic threats like corporate corruption, environmental polluters, and assaults on civil rights and liberties. If you would like to financially support Public Justice and help them continue their important work, click here to visit their website.
