A report to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation Monetary Sanctions in the Criminal Justice System A review of law and policy in Califorina, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington Alexes Harris, Beth Huebner, Karin Martin, Mary Pattillo, Becky Pettit, Sarah Shannon, Bryan Sykes, Chris Uggen, and April Fernandes April 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................6 Monetary Sanctions in California .......................................................................................................................26 Monetary Sanctions in Georgia ..........................................................................................................................48 Monetary Sanctions in Illinois ............................................................................................................................76 Monetary Sanctions in Minnesota .....................................................................................................................98 Monetary Sanctions in Missouri .......................................................................................................................123 Monetary Sanctions in New York .....................................................................................................................143 Monetary Sanctions in North Carolina .............................................................................................................167 Monetary Sanctions in Texas ............................................................................................................................186 Monetary Sanctions in Washington .................................................................................................................201 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Monetary sanctions have always been part of the U.S. criminal justice system. Today they are receiving new attention, as recent social, political, and legal developments have raised questions about how they affect poverty, racial and socioeconomic inequality, and the fair and efficient administration of justice. This summary report draws on evidence culled from reviews of statutes and case law in nine states to draw attention to the policies and practices that govern the imposition, enforcement, and implications of legal financial obligations. Context Over forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed equal protection under the law for criminal defendants unable to pay their legal financial obligations and prohibited the use of imprisonment for unpaid legal financial obligations.1 In recent years, and after four decades of unprecedented growth in the criminal justice system, there is rising interest in the topic of legal financial obligations. Following the police killing of Michael Brown, Jr. in Ferguson, Missouri, the U.S. Department of Justice undertook an investigation of the Ferguson Police Department and concluded that “Ferguson law enforcement efforts are focused on generating revenue.”2 At the state level, The Ferguson Commission Report drew attention to the pervasiveness of legal financial obligations in and around St. Louis County, Missouri, and how they work as an exploitative municipal revenue source and a force of unequal justice.3 Related scholarship has identified legal financial obligations as a key feature of the contemporary criminal justice system. Conceptualized variably as a dimension of punishment, an opportunity for restorative justice, and a source of revenue, legal financial obligations both widen the net of, and intensify the entanglements with, the criminal justice system.4 In the spring of 2016, the Department of Justice issued an historic “Dear Colleague” letter regarding the enforcement of criminal justice fines and fees. Affirming the rights of due process and equal protection, the letter outlined a set of principles to “help judicial actors protect individuals’ rights and avoid unnecessary harm.”5 Key Findings The United States lacks a single coherent set of laws, policies, or principles governing the imposition and enforcement of legal financial obligations. Much like other aspects of the criminal justice system, the policies and practices governing legal financial obligations are set by federal, state, and local governing and administrative bodies. Even the terminology used to describe legal financial obligations varies across jurisdictions. Throughout this report, we use the term “legal financial obligations” to refer to fines, restitution, fees, costs, and surcharges imposed on individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Our review of legal statutes and case law in nine states including California, Georgia, Illinois, 1 Williams v. Illinois, 339 U.S. 235 (1970); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971); and more recently Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). 2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 2015. Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. Available on- line at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_ report.pdf. 3 The Ferguson Commission. 2015. Forward through Ferguson: A Path Toward Racial Equity. Available on-line at: http://3680or2khmk3bzkp33juiea1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/101415_ FergusonCommissionReport.pdf 4 Harris, Alexes. 2016. A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Harris, Alexes, Heather Evans, and Katherine Beckett. 2011. “Courtesy Stigma and Monetary Sanctions: Toward a Socio-Cultural Theory of Punishment.” American Sociological Review 76(2): 1-31. Harris, Alexes, Heather Evans, and Katherine Beckett. 2010. “Drawing Blood from Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary U.S.” American Journal of Sociology 115(6): 1755-99. 5 Gupta, Vanita and Lisa Foster. March 14, 2016. “Dear Colleague.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Available on-line at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/832461/download. 3 Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington generates the following insights: • Legal financial obligations are routinely imposed for misdemeanor and felony criminal justice involvement. • Unpaid legal financial obligations can triggeradditional sanctions that vary in scope and severity; for example: • Relatively small fines assessed for minor offenses may result in large total financial obligations due to the accumulation of fees, costs, and surcharges. • Unpaid legal financial obligations can grow over time interestas and other payment penalties accrue. • Unpaid legal financial obligations can have non-justice related consequences including the suspension of, or inability to renew, a driver’s license. • Unpaid legal financial obligations can extend supervision and trigger other forms of criminal justice involvement, including incarceration. • State statutes stipulate the imposition and enforcement of legal financial obligations. • Several key aspects of the imposition and enforcement of legal financial obligations vary across states and within them, including: • The legal frameworks guiding the imposition of legal financial obligations. • The types of legal financial obligations including fines, restitution, fees, costs, and surcharges. • The laws governing enforcement and collection strategies, including the role of private collection agencies and private correctional supervision. • Legal financial obligations create a range of stakeholders, which vary by state. These agencies, funds, and purposes are the recipients of the fines, fees, and other costs collected by the courts. • There are active legal challenges to the laws and practices governing legal financial obligations. Implications for Research and Policy These and other empirical observations about the legal structures governing the imposition and enforcement of legal financial obligations across and within the nine states included in our study raise important questions for future research. They also help to identify opportunities and challenges for policy change in this landscape. • The statutes and rules governing legal financial obligations areremarkably complex, are included in a wide variety of state legal codes, and commonly involve a broad and diverse set of stakeholders who benefit from or support their imposition. These observations highlight the challenges and opportunities for effecting policy change and also invite further research into the role of key stakeholders in the construction of policymaking. • Formal statutes and rules governing legal financial obligations may not adequately represent how they are imposed and enforced through the daily activities of policing agencies, courts, or supervisory agencies. Stipulated statutes and fee schedules frequently provide allowances for discretion in their imposition and enforcement. More attention must be paid to how the law is practiced and how legal financial obligations are interpreted by those who impose and enforce them. 4 • Some aspects of legal