> POLICY BRIEF

Debtors’ Prisons Redux
How Legal Loopholes Let Courts Across the Country
Criminalize Poverty

DECEMBER 2015
By Allyson Fredericksen and Linnea Lassiter

TAKING ACTION, MAKING CHANGE
The Alliance for a Just Society’s mission is to execute local, state, and national
campaigns and build strong state affiliate organizations and partnerships that address
economic, racial, and social inequities. www.allianceforajustsociety.org

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ALLYSON FREDERICKSEN
Allyson Fredericksen is a policy analyst for the Alliance for a Just Society. She
has produced state and national reports on living wage standards, student
debt, criminalization, Medicaid expansion, women’s access to healthcare, and
the foreclosure crisis. Her research has been featured in local, national, and
international media outlets including Forbes, Marketwatch, ThinkProgress, Al
Jazeera America, World Journal, the New Yorker, the Huffington Post, Seattle
Times, Puget Sound Business Journal, and more. Allyson holds an M.A. in
Policy Studies from the University of Washington with a focus on safety net
and racial justice issues. Her prior experience includes advocating for increased
affordable housing and a strengthened safety net, and research on training
outcomes for child care workers in Washington State.

LINNEA LASSITER
Linnea is an intern at the Alliance for a Just Society, and is a second-year student
at The Evans School of Public Policy & Governance. Before attending graduate
school, she spent five years working in criminal justice policy and advocacy in
Washington, D.C. before returning to her hometown of Seattle, Washington in
early 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This policy brief has benefited from feedback and direction provided by Libero Della Piana, senior organizer
on criminalization and police reform issues at the Alliance for a Just Society.
Additional thanks goes to staff from Washington Community Action Network and Statewide Poverty
Action Network for providing information on ongoing campaigns.
Finally, the authors want to thank all of the organizations included in this report for their continuing work
to end the practice of criminalizing poverty.
ALLIANCEFORAJUSTSOCIETY.ORG 206.568.5400 3518 SOUTH EDMUNDS ST., SEATTLE, WA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................................................1
Criminal Consequences of Unpaid Debt............................................................4
Community Implications......................................................................................7
Community Response...........................................................................................7
Recommendations................................................................................................. 9
Conclusion............................................................................................................. 10
References.............................................................................................................. 10
Appendices:
Appendix 1 Terms to Know
Appendix 2 Modern Day Debtors’ Prisons: How A $100 Traffic Ticket Can
Lead To Thousands In Debt And Jail Time

Note: This report and stand-alone versions of the Appendices and
Recommendations are available at www.allianceforajustsociety.org.

Debtors’ Prisons Redux: How Legal Loopholes Let
Courts Across the Country Criminalize Poverty

A

cross the country, poverty itself has become
a crime. A $150 traffic ticket can result in
thousands of dollars in court-related debt, years
in the criminal justice system, and even incarceration for
those unable to pay. In the wake of the Great Recession,
many state and local courts throughout the country
have created debtors’ prisons by using excessive fines
and fees, private collection companies, and the threat
of jail to collect from defendants. Many defendants are
low-income and have committed offenses as minor as
unpaid parking tickets.
This resurgence of debtors’ prisons is prohibited by
the 14th amendment; it’s unconstitutional to imprison
individuals for debts they cannot pay. However, court
systems across the country have found legal loopholes
to effectively jail people for inability to pay and in some
states, even restrict the voting rights of individuals too
poor to pay off their criminal debt.
This policy brief examines the increasingly common
practice of county and municipal courts charging
exorbitant fees and financial penalties against those
who receive traffic citations and other low-level
criminal infractions and the devastating effects
this practice has on low-income racial and ethnic
minorities, their families and their communities. Poor
people face serious legal and financial consequences
solely due to inability to pay, resulting in a two-tiered
justice system. This report refers to the myriad of courtimposed costs, monetary sanctions and resulting debt
as legal financial obligations, or LFOs.
Many communities and organizations are working
to fight back against this criminalization of poverty,
and others are in a strong position to join the fight.
Additionally, though, policy tools like limiting
the amount of fees that can be added to citations,
regulating debt collection companies, and preventing

local governments from relying on revenue from fines
and fees can help put an end to the new system of
debtors’ prisons.

THE CRIME OF BEING POOR
Many counties and cities are bolstering budget deficits
with revenue generated from legal fees and fines
associated with low-level criminal infractions such
as traffic violations, jaywalking and unpaid parking
tickets. In addition, people of color are more likely to
be issued citations for such violations.1 This is done
through predatory and sometimes unconstitutional
practices similar to those of Ferguson, Missouri, as
documented by a 2015 U.S. Department of Justice
report.2
Furthermore, an alarming number of courts are
imposing exorbitant fees, fines, and predatory
collection methods against those who commit such
minor offenses and cannot afford to pay the citation,
essentially creating a modern-day debtors’ prison that
especially targets low-income people of color and their
communities.3
Since 2010, 48 states have instituted new court fees
for low-level offenses and/or raised existing fees
associated with traffic citations and parking tickets.4
For example, in California running a red light results
in a $549 ticket – only $100 of which is for the traffic
violation itself. The additional $390 consists of a various
fees, including contributions to the state’s DNA Fund
and court construction costs, as well as an automatic
20 percent surcharge applied to every citation issued
in the state.5 While the significant number and type of
fees is questionable in itself, for low-income drivers
such a high-cost ticket can result in even more severe
consequences.

Court systems across the country have found legal loopholes to
effectively jail people for inability to pay.
Alliance for a Just Society | 1

In California, for example, a person unable to pay
on-time is required to attend an initial court hearing.
For many low-income people, however, there can be
significant barriers to attending, including an inability
to take time off work, lack of available transportation,
lack of child care, or lack of a reliable or permanent
address where they can receive notice of the hearing.6
Additionally, many poor people don’t show up because
they do not have the money and fear that they will be
thrown in jail as a result.7 Regardless of the reason,
those who miss the initial payment deadline and miss
their initial court hearing in California are charged an
additional $325 in penalties, resulting in a new total
amount due of $815– $715 more than the cost of the
original traffic violation. 8
In addition to implementing a multitude of costly
court fees, some state and local governments have
passed laws making it extremely difficult for lowincome people to pay, such as eliminating fee waivers
for the poor. In 43 states and the District of Columbia,
defendants are charged fees to apply for a public
defender (typically ranging from $25 to $200),9 and two
states - Florida and North Carolina - have both passed
laws prohibiting judges from waiving public defense
application fees for the indigent.10
As a result, often the only accommodation available
to the poor is a payment plan, regardless of whether the
defendant has the ability to make regular payments.
Because of this, several Florida judges have reported
ordering payment plans even when they know the
defendant truly is unable to pay; essentially sentencing
them to years of debt and possible jail time for failing
to comply with court orders if they are unable to make
the necessary payments.11 Additionally, not only has
Florida added 20 new court fees since 199612 including
$40 to contest a traffic citation in any county court and
a $30 surcharge for all traffic violations,13 but the state
has simultaneously eliminated exemptions for the
indigent.14
It is not just a handful of states that charge excessive
fees. All but two states – Alaska and North Dakota
– have instituted new court fees and/or increased
criminal fees since 2010.15 Many states, including
Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio and Washington also
routinely charge indigent defendants fees without
regard to ability to pay.16
The criminalization of poverty observed in court
systems nationwide has an even greater impact on

2 | Alliance for a Just Society

low-income racial and ethnic minorities. Not only
are black and Latino drivers pulled over and issued
traffic citations at higher rates than those of white
drivers,17 but people of color are also more likely to
live in poverty18 and experience unemployment19 than
whites, and are therefore more vulnerable to excessive
court costs.

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?
Many municipalities are heavily reliant of traffic
citations as a source of revenue. In Austin, Texas, for
example, traffic fines constitute 45 percent of all General
Fund revenues for the city’s Municipal Court.20 Court
fees and surcharges applied to traffic citations and
other crimes are also a significant source of revenue for
many court systems. As James Tignanelli, president
of the Police Officers Association of Michigan union,
noted in 2009, “When elected officials say, ‘We need
more money,’ they can’t look to the department of
public works to raise revenues, so where do they find
it? Police departments.21” This has been the case in
Normandy, Missouri, where more than 40 percent of
general revenue comes from municipal court fines and
fees.22
In some cases, these fees go toward literally
keeping the lights on in the building, and to other
less necessary expenditures. In 2013 the ACLU filed a
brief on behalf of Frederick Cunningham, a criminal
defendant in Allegan County, Michigan who was
ordered to pay $1,918 upon conviction, $1,000 of which
was court fees.23 When Cunningham challenged these
fees, a court official testified that $500 reimbursed the
public defender program that provided the indigent
defendant’s attorney.24 The remaining $500 went
towards court operating costs, which included: court
employee salaries; utility bills; building maintenance
and insurance; and construction of an employee gym.25
Additionally, some of the surcharges assessed by local
courts are dedicated to state government programs.
The State of California, for example, mandates that all
courts collect a state penalty assessment in addition
to local court fees, which is then deposited into The
State Penalty Fund.26 This revenue is then allocated to
a variety of sources, including: a Corrections Training
Fund; Fish and Game Preservation Fund; Local Public
Prosecutors and Public Defender Training Fund; and
the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund.27

housing, employment and other essential needs.32
Due to high interest rates, annual fees, and late
payment surcharges, it can literally take decades for
a low-income person to pay off legal debt, even when
each monthly payment is on time.33 The table below
illustrates just how long it takes for a low-income
Washington resident to pay off $2,540 (the average
LFO amount imposed on in Washington) assuming
every monthly payment is made on time and in full.34
As illustrated by the table below, poverty penalties
trap low-income individuals into a cycle of poverty.
For example, a person who pays $25 on time each
month for five years on an LFO of $2,540 -- that is,
paying a total of $1,500 out-of-pocket – will still owe
$2,073 after five years of regular payments: only $467
less than the original amount owed. A person who can
only afford $10 per month, in fact, will owe $6,083 after
ten years and $56,362 after thirty years; having only
owed $2,540 before a single payment was made. This
is not an isolated example; low-income individuals
owing tens of thousands of dollars for decades-old
tickets or other low-level offenses have been reported
on in Washington,35 and similar cases have been seen
in California36 and Florida.37
Inescapable debt is not the only consequence for lowincome individuals who commit traffic violations and
other low-level offenses; being poor and unable to pay
criminal debt also carries severe legal ramifications.

POVERTY PENALTIES AND INESCAPABLE DEBT
The debt accrued from court fees, otherwise known as
legal financial obligations (LFOs) are then compounded
by “poverty penalties” – added costs which those with
the means to pay on-time are not subject to – which
include late payment charges, monthly service fees,
exorbitant interest rates on outstanding balances and
various other financial penalties.
These poverty penalties have been observed in states
across the country. California courts issue late penalties
of up to $300 for tickets not paid within 30 days and
all other late court payments.28 And, in some places,
even setting up a payment plan costs money. Those
who can only afford to pay monthly installments in
New Orleans are charged a $100 mandatory fee, which
cannot be added to the total amount due, but rather is
due up-front.29
Additionally, a growing number of states contract
third-party private collection agencies to collect LFO
debt. For example, Florida state law allows private
collection companies to add up to a 40 percent
surcharge on unpaid LFOs.30 The National Association
for Public Defense has documented the predatory
and threatening collection methods often used by
such companies, which can even include stalking and
illegal asset forfeiture.31 Outstanding balances with
these private collection agencies are also reported to
credit agencies, which can result in barriers to obtain

AVERAGE AMOUNT OWED BY MONTHLY PAYMENT IN WASHINGTON STATE FOR
LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF $2,540
Remaining Balance Remaining Balance Remaining Balance Remaining Balance
in Five Years
in Ten Years
in Fifteen Years
in Thirty Years
$10 Monthly
Payment
$25 Monthly
Payment
$50 Monthly
Payment
$100 Monthly
Payment

$3,798

$6,083

$10,234

$56,362

$2,073

$2,632

$2,740

$3,938

$531

Paid in full after 6
years of payments

0

0

Paid in full after 30
months of payments

0

0

0

Source: Washington State Minority and Justice Commission

Alliance for a Just Society | 3

CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNPAID DEBT
In an increasing number of county and municipal
courts, poverty itself has become a crime, as evidenced
by the criminal prosecution and routine jailing of those
unable to pay LFOs. This criminalization of poverty,
observed in courts across the country, is essentially
a modern-day debtors’ prison: the historical practice
of jailing those with outstanding debts as a means of
payment.
In 1833, debtors’ prisons were abolished under
federal law by the United States Congress and
eventually declared unconstitutional. In a series of
rulings and, most notably, the 1983 landmark case of
Bearden vs. Georgia, The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
that to hold an individual in detention due to inability
to pay is unconstitutional and a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.38
Although debtors’ prisons are explicitly illegal per
the U.S. Constitution, failure to pay legal financial
obligations due to poverty can and does result in
incarceration in courts across the country. But because
judges may not order jail just for failure to pay, court
systems have instituted alternate ways to detain the
poor for nonpayment. The most common ways courts
are able to legally able to jail poor people for unpaid
LFOs are: driver’s license suspension and subsequent
conviction if caught driving; failure to appear charges;
contempt of court charges; and “pay-or-stay” jailing
practices.

DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION
One way in which courts criminalize poverty is
through driver’s license suspension, which can be
particularly devastating for low-income people. It is
legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to
suspend driving privileges for reasons unrelated to
driving.39 This practice is so common, in fact, that an
estimated 40 percent of all suspended licenses in the
U.S. are due to unpaid traffic tickets and/or low-level,
non-violent criminal offenses unrelated to driving.40
Following the loss of driving privileges, lowincome people may have no legal method in which to
seek or maintain employment, care for children and
other family, purchase basic needs such as food, or
attend mandatory court hearings and social services
appointments required to maintain public assistance.

4 | Alliance for a Just Society

Public transportation is simply not a feasible option for
many living in poverty, due to lack of availability in
their region and/or inability to afford multiple daily
fares for each member of their family.41 As such, when
poor people who rely on a vehicle lose their license,
they often must break the law on a daily basis in order
to keep a job and care for their family. In fact, according
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
at least three-fourths of those with suspended licenses
continue driving.42
Penalties for Driving with a Suspended License
(DWSL) vary by state, but can include fees of up to
$2,500, mandatory jail time, probation, and/or vehicle
impoundment.43 Unlike traffic citations, DWSL is a
misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor in 48 states and
the District of Columbia, 44 which can further limit
employment and housing opportunities to low-income
people.45
Employment is key to repaying LFO debt and paying
the fees necessary for license restoration; however,
driver’s license suspensions significantly reduce the
ability to work and earn a living wage, compounding
the economic vulnerability of persons living in
poverty. A 2006 survey in New Jersey found that of
those with suspended licenses, 42 percent of drivers
were unable to keep their job immediately following
license suspension and of those drivers 45 percent
were unable to find another job.46 Less than 6 percent of
these license suspensions were due to driving-related
offenses.47 This same study found that while only 16.5
percent of all licensed New Jersey drivers reside in
low-income zip codes, these zip codes accounted for
43 percent of all suspended licenses in the state.48
People of color – and particularly African-Americans
– are disproportionately more likely to have their
driver’s license suspended.49 Some of this is due to
the higher poverty rates for people of color,50 as there
is an established relationship between poverty and
suspended driver’s licenses,51 as those experiencing
poverty may be less able to pay even minor traffic
tickets. Additionally, the documentation of racial bias
in policing, including in traffic stops and citations,52
illustrates that racial bias is also at play in putting a
disproportionate share of people of color in a situation
where they can lose their license due to their financial
obligations to the court.

FAILURE TO APPEAR
Another way municipal courts arrest and jail people
essentially for being poor is through Failure to Appear
(FTA) charges. Typically, those who receive citations
can either pay in full within a given time-frame or
attend a scheduled court hearing.
However, many defendants who cannot pay the cost
of a citation miss the initial court appearance because
they fear being arrested. Additionally, as previously
mentioned, low-income people can face significant
barriers to attending court.53
What most citations do not communicate, though, is
that by failing to attend this initial court date a judge
may issue a bench warrant for arrest and issue a charge
of Failure to Appear,54 which can include additional
fines and fees, and the possibility of jail time.
It should also be noted that many states suspend
driver’s licenses for failure to appear as well as unpaid
legal financial obligations. In California, for example,
over 4.2 million people, or more than 17 percent of
adult Californians, have suspended driver’s licenses
as a direct result of failure to pay or failure to appear.55
In some cases, even defendants who arrive at court
still receive FTA charges due to illegal municipal court
policies and practices. A 2015 U.S. Department of
Justice investigation in Ferguson, Missouri, found that
some people who attend court to pay their fines near
the end of the day found the court window already
closed, despite notices on the court’s website stating
that it should still be open.56 Additionally, the court

will sometimes begin hearing cases early and then lock
the doors to the building “as early as five minutes after
the official hour,” leaving any defendant who arrives
late to receive a charge of Failure to Appear.57
Parents also reported arriving to courts in Missouri
with their children, for whom they could not obtain
or afford childcare, only to be told that their young
children are not allowed in the courtroom and that
to attend the hearing, their children must wait in the
parking lot unattended.58 These parents either had
to leave their children unattended, or risk receiving a
Failure to Appear charge.

CONTEMPT OF COURT
In the absence of or in addition to Failure to Appear
or Driving with a Suspended license charges, many
judges routinely jail traffic violators on the basis of
Contempt of Court charges, even if the only basis for
which is inability to pay LFOs.59
Ironically, judges who detain defendants for
contempt, solely based on nonpayment, are able to
do so using a technicality contained in the same 1983
Supreme Court ruling that found jailing individuals
for inability to pay is a violation of the 14th amendment
and unconstitutional. Despite establishing this, the
ruling also held that judges must first determine
whether a defendant has the ability to pay, but
“willfully” refuses to do so.60 But because the Supreme
Court provided no uniform standard or procedure
for judges to use in determining whether a person’s

Because the Supreme Court provided no uniform standard or
procedure for judges to use in determining whether a person’s
nonpayment is “willful,” many judges arbitrarily deem that
defendants are willfully avoiding payment and find them in
contempt of court, despite true inability to pay.

Alliance for a Just Society | 5

nonpayment is “willful,” many judges arbitrarily deem
that defendants are willfully avoiding payment and
find them in contempt of court, despite true inability
to pay.61
Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas are
just a few of the states with jurisdictions that routinely
find defendants in contempt for inability to pay.62
Whether their detainment is lawful or not, defendants
are often unaware of their rights, unable to pay defense
application fees, or are simply denied their right to
counsel.63
Some judges use arbitrary and discriminatory
methods to determine a defendant’s true ability
to pay outstanding debt. Judge Robert Swisher of
Benton County, Washington, for example, reports the
following factors as the basis of his determination:
whether the defendant appears to be wearing
expensive clothes, particularly NFL jackets; whether
they smoke cigarettes; and if they have tattoos that
appear expensive.64 Unsurprisingly, about 20 percent
of those detained in Benton County Jail in 2014 were
serving jail time for failure to pay LFO debt, costing
Benton County $68.59 a day to house each inmate.65
Additionally, some judges demand that defendants
use their public assistance benefits to pay LFOs.66 This
is particularly problematic for those who survive solely
on cash assistance such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI): programs which were created to ensure
basic needs such as housing, child care, and medical
care for the most vulnerable populations, so using
these for court fees leaves little to no ability to cover
other vital expenses. Yet, faced with the threat of jail
time and additional legal sanctions, many feel that they
have no other choice but to hand over their benefits, to
the detriment of themselves and their families.

PAY-OR-STAY: JAIL AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PAYMENT
Poor people also serve time for unpaid LFOs through
a practice referred to as “pay-or-stay” in which a judge
grants the option of paying debt in full or serve jail time
to satisfy debts. Washington State, for example, allows
judges to detain defendants and apply a credit to
their outstanding balance for each day in jail served.67
Many, including the American Civil Liberties Union
have cited this practice as an overt violation of the
Equal Protection Clause because jail time only applies
to those unable to pay.68
In September 2015, The New York Times published
video of a municipal court judge in Bowdon County,
Georgia explicitly stating to two traffic violators that
they must pay their fines immediately or be remanded
to custody.69 Neither defendant had a lawyer present,
despite the fact that in Georgia, “poor defendants are
supposed to have access to a court-appointed lawyer if
they face jail or probation.70”
Although some judges claim that “pay-or-stay”
programs provide an alternative method for indigent
defendants to reduce or eliminate debt,71 it is unclear
whether this practice actually saves court systems any
money. In Benton County, Washington, for example,
at least one judge routinely provides low-income
defendants with the option of earning a $50 credit for
each day served in jail, but considering the county jail
spends over $68 per day just to house and feed each
inmate, this program only results in a net loss to the
county.72 It is unclear how many county courts use this
method, but an investigation by NPR and the Brennan
Center for Justice contained multiple accounts from
those who claim to have been offered reduced debt in
exchange for a jail sentence.73

Judge Robert Swisher of Benton County, Washington reports the
following factors as the basis of his determination: whether the
defendant appears to be wearing expensive clothes, particularly
NFL jackets; whether they smoke cigarettes; and if they have
tattoos that appear expensive.
6 | Alliance for a Just Society

COMMUNITY IMPLICATIONS
Municipal and local courts that criminalize poverty
by targeting low-income racial or ethnic minorities
worsen the existing economic, social, and racial
disparities between low-income communities of color
and middle-class neighborhoods. Although blacks and
Latinos have been consistently employed at lower rates
than whites over the past 50 years,74 the employment
gap between whites and racial and ethnic minorities
has widened in many states following the Great
Recession.75 During this same period, courts across
the nation began to increase court fees, generating
revenue through modern-day debtors’ prisons and the
criminalization of poverty.76
As previously discussed, legal sanctions for unpaid
criminal debt can impact one’s ability to maintain or
find employment. The impact of this, though, can
extend beyond individuals to their families77 and to
the greater community.78 Because those with unpaid
LFOs are already more likely to be poor, and poverty
is often concentrated by neighborhood,79 LFOs can
only serve to exacerbate the debt and poverty of poor
neighborhoods – especially in poor communities of
color,80 whose residents may be even more likely to
be pulled over in the first place. Neighborhoods of
concentrated poverty are significantly more likely to
have high crime – particularly violent crime – rates;
limited job opportunities due to reduced private sector
investment; inadequate educational opportunities
and increased prices for goods and services,81 creating
additional barriers for those with LFOs to pay.
When legal financial obligations lead to prison and/
or extreme debt and poverty, it can also impact the

children of those with the unpaid court fees, potentially
creating an intergenerational cycle of poverty and
involvement with the criminal justice system. The
effects on children with an incarcerated parent
can include “negative behavioral manifestations”
including truancy and use of drugs or alcohol.82
Additionally, suspension and dropout rates are higher
for children with an incarcerated parent than for other
children.83 These risky behaviors have long-term
negative implications for the community as a whole.
Additionally, children of parents with debt are also
more likely to be unhappy at school,84 regardless of
whether that debt led to the parent’s incarceration.
Neighborhoods with concentrated poverty also have
high rates of intergenerational poverty,85 making it
more likely that children of parents who are poor and
who cannot afford to pay their LFOs will likewise end
up in poverty as adults.
Additionally, when municipal courts criminalize
poverty and target low-income communities of color,
it can create racial hostility, which can in turn lead
to increased violence within the community. While
many African-Americans are historically distrustful
of police,86 racially targeted policing, disproportionate
police violence against people of color,87 and a system
that criminalizes poor people of color has reinforced
and exacerbated existing mistrust and fear. This
can lead to unpredictable, and sometimes violent,
outcomes, as evidenced by the death of Michael Brown
and subsequent clashes between police and other
members of the community in Ferguson, Missouri,88
that can endanger the safety of residents and police.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE
The 2014 murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri and subsequent Department of Justice
investigation into predatory court practices in
Ferguson, have generated political momentum for
many organizations and community activists in
Ferguson and throughout the country, resulting in
political reform at the state and county level.
Several organizations in Missouri have successfully
influenced recent criminal justice reform. ArchCity
Defenders, a Missouri-based collection of lawyers
and activists, was the first to document how several
St. Louis County courts routinely barred children

from courtrooms, essentially forcing parents to miss
their court date and face Failure to Appear charges,
steep fees and arrest warrants.89 Based in part on the
organization’s work, in June 2014 the Presiding Judge
of St. Louis County Circuit Courts admonished all 81
municipal courts for closing courtrooms to anyone
not “named on the docket or a counsel of record,” and
therefore limiting the ability to ensure those courts are
not engaging in discriminatory and unconstitutional
policies.90
Organizations including the St. Louis County
Municipal
Court
Improvement
Commission,

Alliance for a Just Society | 7

Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment
(MORE) and The Center for Popular Democracy have
also directly influenced reforms through issuing
several policy recommendations, 91 many of which
were later adopted. Recommendations included
assessing fines proportionate to income; elimination
of Failure to Appear charges for traffic violations; and
elimination of automatic license suspension for failure
to appear. Many of these recommendations were
reflected in a 2015 Missouri bill that limits fees, bans
failure to appear charges for missing a municipal court
date, prohibits jail for most minor driving-related
infractions and limits the costs of traffic citations
combined with court costs to $300.92 This bill, signed
into law on July 9, 2015, also lowers the cap on general
operating revenues generated by traffic citations from
30 percent to 20 percent across Missouri and places a
cap of 12.5 percent general operating revenue deriving
from traffic citations within St. Louis County and
municipalities.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a
prominent critic of excessive legal financial obligations
and has conducted several investigative reports and
campaigns regarding modern-day debtors’ prisons
in such states as Washington, Louisiana, Michigan,
Ohio and Georgia.93 Some of these reports have led
to substantive changes. In 2013, for example, The
ACLU of Ohio released a report on the resurgence
of debtors’ prisons, titled, “The Outskirts of Hope:
How Ohio’s Debtors’ Prisons are Ruining Lives and
Costing Communities.” This report included a series
of recommendations, including that the Ohio Supreme
Court “institute administrative rules to ensure that
all courts properly determine whether a person can
afford to pay her criminal fines, in order to ensure that
those who are unable to pay are not incarcerated for
these debts. 94 In response to pressure from the ACLU
and other groups, in February 2014 the Ohio State
Supreme Court created a bench card that includes
clear instructions and rules for enforcing fines, and
distributed it to municipal and local courts statewide.
The bench card states, among other instructions, that
defendants cannot be found in contempt of court on the
basis of nonpayment nor ordered to jail for “willful”
nonpayment, until an ability-to-pay hearing takes
place, at which a public defender must be provided.95

8 | Alliance for a Just Society

The ACLU of Washington released a joint report in
2014 with Columbia Legal Services titled, “Modern-Day
Debtors’ Prisons: How Court-Imposed Debts Punish
Poor People in Washington.” This report highlighted
particularly egregious practices observed in Benton
County, Washington where one in four people jailed
for misdemeanors are there due to inability to pay
court fines and costs.96 In October of 2015, the ACLU of
Washington, on behalf of three plaintiffs, sued Benton
County for operating a modern-day debtors prison.97
In Washington, a coalition of organizations
including Washington Community Action Network
(Washington CAN!), the Statewide Poverty Action
Network, and Columbia Legal Services, has also
tirelessly campaigned for Washington State Legislature
bill HB 1390, which would limit interest rates on LFOs
and create a transparent process of LFO waivers for
the indigent.98 Specifically, the bill would “eliminate
interest accrual on the non-restitution portions of legal
financial obligations (LFOs) imposed in a criminal
judgment” and mandate that judges only order
defendants to pay upon review of their circumstances
and ability to pay.99 The bill passed 94-4 by the state
House100 and will be considered by the state Senate
during the upcoming legislation session.101 Washington
CAN! and other community activist groups continue
to campaign in support of this bill.
Organizations in Virginia, including Virginia
Organizing and the ACLU of Virginia, have worked
tirelessly in coalition to ensure barriers like LFOs do
not restrict voting rights. Prior to 2013, Virginia was
one of only four states nationwide that permanently
disenfranchised those with a felony conviction.102
Even after streamlining the voting rights restoration
process in 2013,103 allowing some people with felony
convictions to vote, LFO repayment was still required
prior to restoration.104 This left many former felons,
otherwise eligible to vote, disenfranchised on the sole
basis of poverty and inability to pay. That changed
in 2015 when Governor Terry McAuliffe ordered
that unpaid court costs and fees no longer bar former
felons from voting rights restoration.105 Although
administrative hurdles still keep many felons in
Virginia from the right to vote,106 this recent reform is a
small, but significant step.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Imprisonment due to poverty was outlawed by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, yet today
courts across the country continue to find ways to imprison people for being poor. The following policy tools can
help ensure that poverty does not equal a jail sentence.

Limit automatic fees attached to citations.
By limiting fees attached to citations to a percent of the initial citation, a small infraction would not grow to
an impossible burden. Additionally, though, fees should have direct correlation to the specific citation and
requirement of payment should be based on an individual’s ability to pay.

Limit interest rates and fees attached to unpaid financial obligations.
Inability to pay should not result in a never-ending penalty due to high interest rates. Interest rates should be
capped at 6 percent, and based on ability to pay. Additionally, mandatory annual fees for payment plans should
be eliminated.

Cap operating revenue from fees.
Government entities should not rely on fees from citations to survive. Capping the percentage of revenue that
can come from these fees would help prevent a policy where police are encouraged to write as many tickets as
possible just to raise revenue for general funds.

Establish more clear criteria for determining ability to pay fines and fees.
When judges have no clear criteria for setting fines and fees, and no criteria for determining ability to pay, it
is left to the judge’s discretion. More clear criteria including employment history and status, public assistance
status, and more can help prevent bias in fines and fees and in determining whether a defendant is willfully
refusing to pay or simply cannot pay. A bench card such as the one distributed in Ohio, could help limit bias
and help judges rule fairly.

Prohibit driver’s license suspension for inability to pay.
Inability to pay should not result in suspension of a driver’s license that is necessary to remain or gain employment.
Lack of a driver’s license can only increase the chance that someone will be unable to pay and then end up in a
cycle of poverty.

Restrict courts’ ability to send unpaid fines and fees to outside debt collection agencies, and
better regulate the debt collection industry.
Even when a financial obligation is relatively modest, if it is unpaid it often ends up in the hands of debt
collectors. These debt collectors not only charge extremely high interest rates, they often use bullying tactics and
add additional fees of their own that leave those paying fines and fees in a cycle of debt and poverty. Restricting
circumstances where debt from fees and fines can go to collections agencies and regulating the ability to add
additional fees, regulating interest rates, and prohibiting bullying tactics like threatening jail time for unpaid
debts would help stop this cycle.

Alliance for a Just Society | 9

CONCLUSION
In courtrooms throughout the country, poverty itself has become a crime. Those living in poverty – and especially
communities of color – are often unfairly targeted, then punished for their inability to pay.
Solutions to this problem must include community activism efforts from within the community as well as
policy change. Community pressure to reduce police targeting and to reduce fines and fees, along with structural
policy changes that prevent government from relying on fees to stay afloat, can help end the criminalization of
poverty.

REFERENCES
1	
Greenleaf, R., Lurigio, A., Flexon, J., & Walker, T. (2011). “Race-based decisions: Traffic citations and municipal court
dispositions.” Justice Policy Journal 8 (1). http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Race-based_decisions.pdf
2	
U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division (2015). “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department.” http://www.
justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
3	
Hampson, C. (2015). “The new American debtors’ prisons.” Harvard Law School 2015 L. Werner Prize: Criminal Justice.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17840773/New percent20American percent20Debtors’ percent20Prisons percent5B1
percent5D.pdf?sequence=3
4	
National Public Radio (2014). “State-by-state court fees.” http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-courtfees
5	
Chen, C. (2013). “California drives up traffic fines with fees earmarked for projects.” The Center for Investigative Reporting.
http://cironline.org/reports/california-drives-traffic-fines-fees-earmarked-projects-5223
6	
Hannah Lieberman Consulting, LLC. & John A. Tull & Associates (2011). “Overcoming barriers that prevent low-income
persons from resolving civil legal problems.” Minnesota State Bar Association. http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/
administration/Final_MN-CABS_Study_September_2011.pdf
7	
Hampson, C. (2015). “The new American debtors’ prisons.” Harvard Law School 2015 L. Werner Prize: Criminal Justice.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17840773/New percent20American percent20Debtors’ percent20Prisons percent5B1
percent5D.pdf?sequence=3
8	
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (2015). “Not just a Ferguson problem: How traffic
courts drive inequality in California.” http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-CourtsDrive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf
9	
National Public Radio (2014). “State-by-state court fees.” http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-courtfees
10	
Diller, R. (2010). “The hidden costs of Florida’s criminal justice fees.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.
brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/FloridaF&F.pdf?nocdn=1
11	
Ibid.
12	
Ibid.
13	
Patel, R. & Philip, M. (2012). “Criminal justice debt: A toolkit for action.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.
brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/publications/Criminal percent20Justice percent20Debt percent20Background percent20for
percent20web.pdf
14	
Diller, R. (2010). “The hidden costs of Florida’s criminal justice fees.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.
brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/FloridaF&F.pdf?nocdn=1
15	
National Public Radio (2014). “State-by-state court fees.” http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-courtfees
16	
American Civil Liberties Union (2010). “In for a penny: The rise of America’s new debtors’ prisons.” https://www.aclu.org/
files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf

10 | Alliance for a Just Society

17	
The Leadership Conference (2011). “Restoring a national consensus: The need to end racial profiling in America.” http://
www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf
18	
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2014). “Poverty rate by race/ethnicity.” http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/povertyrate-by-raceethnicity/
19	
Wilson, V. & Bivens, J. (2014). “Estimates of unemployment rates by race and ethnicity at the MSA level for the third
quarter of 2014.” Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/fed-unemployment-race/
20	
City of Austin Municipal Court (2014). “2014 annual report.” https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Municipal_
Court/2014_Annual_Report.pdf
21	
Hunter, G. (2009). “More tickets in hard times.” Car and Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/more-tickets-in-hardtimes
22	
Better Together (2014). “Public safety – Municipal courts.” http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
BT-Municipal-Courts-Report-Full-Report1.pdf
23	
Shapiro, J. (2014). “As court fees rise, the poor are paying the price.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fees-punish-the-poor
24	
Ibid.
25	
Ibid.
26	
Kern County Superior Court. “Where the money goes.” https://www.kern.courts.ca.gov/pdf/where_money_goes.pdf
27	
Ibid.
28	
Patel, R. & Philip, M. (2012). “Criminal justice debt: A toolkit for action.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.
brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/publications/Criminal percent20Justice percent20Debt percent20Background percent20for
percent20web.pdf
29	
Ibid.
30	
Diller, R. (2010). “The hidden costs of Florida’s criminal justice fees.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.
brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/FloridaF&F.pdf?nocdn=1
31	
National Association of Public Defense (2015). “NAPD policy statement on the predatory collection of costs, fines, and fees
in America’s criminal courts.” http://www.publicdefenders.us/sites/default/files/NAPD_Statement_on_Predatory_Collection_Practices.
pdf
32	
Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2010). “Drawing blood from stones: Legal debt and social inequality in the
contemporary United States.” University of Chicago. http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2010-Blood-fromStones-AJSj.pdf
33	
American Civil Liberties Union (2010). “In for a penny: The rise of America’s new debtors’ prisons.” https://www.aclu.org/
files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf
34	
Beckett, K., Harris, A., & Evans, H. (2008). “The assessment and consequences of legal financial obligations in Washington
state.” Washington State Minority and Justice Commission. http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/2008LFO_report.pdf
35	
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services (2014). “Modern-day debtors’ prisons: How
court-imposed debts punish poor people in Washington.” http://columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/ModernDayDebtorsPrison.pdf
36	
Lane, K. “Driving while poor.” Community Coalition. http://cocosouthla.org/driving-while-poor/
37	
Orlando Sentinel (2015). “Court fees can mean jail time in Orange County.” http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breakingnews/os-court-fines-20150904-premiumvideo.html
38	
American Civil Liberties Union (2010). “In for a penny: The rise of America’s new debtors’ prisons.” https://www.aclu.org/
files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf
39	
Smallen, W. & Teigen, A. (2011). “Transportation review: Driving on a suspended or revoked license.” National Conference
of State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/suspended-license2011.pdf
40	
Shapiro, J. (2015). “How driver’s license suspensions unfairly target the poor.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2015/01/05/372691918/how-drivers-license-suspensions-unfairly-target-the-poor
41	
White, G. (2015). “Stranded: How America’s failing public transportation increases inequality.” The Atlantic. http://www.
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/
42	
Shapiro, J. (2015). “How driver’s license suspensions unfairly target the poor.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2015/01/05/372691918/how-drivers-license-suspensions-unfairly-target-the-poor
43	
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). “Driving while revoked, suspended, or otherwise unlicensed: Penalties by
state.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/driving-while-revoked-suspended-or-otherwise-unli.aspx
44	
Ibid.
45	
Roberts, J. (2011). “Why misdemeanors matter: Defining effective advocacy in the lower criminal courts.” American
University, Washington College of Law. http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/45/2/Articles/45-2_Jenny_Roberts.pdf
46	
Motor Vehicles Affordability and Fairness Task Force (2006). “Final report.” New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. http://
www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/About/AFTF_final_02.pdf.

Alliance for a Just Society | 11

47	
Ibid.
48	
Ibid.
49	
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (2015). “Not just a Ferguson problem: How traffic
courts drive inequality in California.” http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-CourtsDrive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf
50	
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2014). “Poverty rate by race/ethnicity.” http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/povertyrate-by-raceethnicity/
51	
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (2015). “Not just a Ferguson problem: How traffic
courts drive inequality in California.” http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-CourtsDrive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf
52	
Greenleaf, R., Lurigio, A., Flexon, J., & Walker, T. (2011). “Race-based decisions: Traffic citations and municipal court
dispositions.” Justice Policy Journal 8 (1). http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Race-based_decisions.pdf
53	
Hannah Lieberman Consulting, LLC. & John A. Tull & Associates (2011). “Overcoming barriers that prevent low-income
persons from resolving civil legal problems.” Minnesota State Bar Association. http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/
administration/Final_MN-CABS_Study_September_2011.pdf
54	
FailuretoAppear.org. “Failure to appear consequences.” http://www.failuretoappear.org/failuretoappearconsequences.html
55	
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (2015). “Not just a Ferguson problem: How traffic
courts drive inequality in California.” http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-Traffic-CourtsDrive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf
56	
U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division (2015). “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department.” http://www.
justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
57	
Harvey, T., McAnner, J., Voss, M., Conn, M., Janda, S., & Keskey, S. (2014). “Municipal courts white paper.” ArchCity
Defenders. http://03a5010.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ArchCity-Defenders-Municipal-CourtsWhitepaper.pdf
58	
U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division (2015). “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department.” http://www.
justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
59	
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services (2014). “Modern-day debtors’ prisons: How
court-imposed debts punish poor people in Washington.” http://columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/ModernDayDebtorsPrison.pdf
60	
Bannon, A., Nagrecha, M., & Diller, R. (2010). “Criminal justice debt: A barrier to reentry.” Brennan Center for Justice.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Fees%20and%20Fines%20FINAL.pdf
61	
Shapiro, J. (2014). “Supreme Court ruling not enough to prevent debtors prisons.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons
62	
Bannon, A., Nagrecha, M., & Diller, R. (2010). “Criminal justice debt: A barrier to reentry.” Brennan Center for Justice.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Fees%20and%20Fines%20FINAL.pdf
63	
Pastore, C. (2006). “Life after Lassiter: An overview of state-court right-to-counsel decisions.” Clearinghouse Review
Journal of Poverty Law and Policy. http://civilrighttocounsel.org/uploaded_files/37/Life_after_Lassiter__Pastore_.pdf
64	
Shapiro, J. (2014). “Supreme Court ruling not enough to prevent debtors prisons.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons
65	
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services (2014). “Modern-day debtors’ prisons: How
court-imposed debts punish poor people in Washington.” http://columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/ModernDayDebtorsPrison.pdf
66	
Shapiro, J. (2014). “Supreme Court ruling not enough to prevent debtors prisons.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons
67	
Beckett, K., Harris, A., & Evans, H. (2008). “The assessment and consequences of legal financial obligations in Washington
state.” Washington State Minority and Justice Commission. http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/2008LFO_report.pdf
68	
American Civil Liberties Union (2011). “ACLU challenges debtors’ prisons across Michigan.” https://www.aclu.org/news/
aclu-challenges-debtors-prisons-across-michigan
69	
Dewan, S. (2015). “A surreptitious courtroom video prompts changes in Georgia town.” The New York Times. http://www.
nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/a-surreptitious-courtroom-video-prompts-changes-in-a-georgia-town.html?_r=0
70	
The Crime Report (2015). “GA court changes practices after judge caught on video threatening jail.” http://www.
thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/2015-09-ga-court-video
71	
Kraemer, K. (2013). “Paying district court fines with jail time debated in Benton County.” Tri-City Herald. http://www.tricityherald.com/news/local/article32150493.html
72	
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services (2014). “Modern-day debtors’ prisons: How
court-imposed debts punish poor people in Washington.” http://columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/ModernDayDebtorsPrison.pdf
73	
National Public Radio (2014). “Profiles of those forced to ‘pay or stay.’” http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/310710716/profilesof-those-forced-to-pay-or-stay

12 | Alliance for a Just Society

74	
Plumer, B. (2013). “These ten charts show the black-white economic gap hasn’t budged in 50 years.” The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budgedin-50-years/
75	
Wilson, V. (2015). “So far, the black unemployment rate has only recovered in states where it was highest before the Great
Recession.” Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/so-far-the-black-unemployment-rate-has-only-recovered-instates-where-it-was-highest-before-the-great-recession/
76	
Shapiro, J. (2014). “As court fees rise, the poor are paying the price.” National Public Radio. http://www.npr.
org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fees-punish-the-poor
77	
Shapiro, J. (2015). “Study finds court fees also punish the families of those who owe.” National Public Radio. http://www.
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382380183/study-finds-court-fees-also-punish-the-families-of-those-who-owe
78	
Bannon, A., Nagrecha, M., & Diller, R. (2010). “Criminal justice debt: A barrier to reentry.” Brennan Center for Justice.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Fees%20and%20Fines%20FINAL.pdf
79	
Kneebone, E. (2014). “The growth and spread of concentrated poverty, 2000 to 2008-2012.” The Brookings Institute. http://
www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/concentrated-poverty#/M10420
80	
Atkinson, T. (2015). “A fine scheme: How municipal fines become crushing debt in the shadow of the new debtors’ prison.”
Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 51(1). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2597908##
81	
Open Society Institute (2008). “Moving toward a more integrative approach to justice reform.” http://www.brennancenter.
org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/06%20Behind%20The%20Cycle%20Policy%20Report.pdf
82	
Simmons, C. (2000). “Children of incarcerated parents.” California Research Bureau. https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/00/
notes/v7n2.pdf
83	
Parke, R. & Clarke-Stewart, K. (2001). “Effects of parental incarceration on young children.” U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/effects-parental-incarceration-young-children
84	
The Children’s Society (2014). “Report reveal’s debts true damage to children, families.” http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/
news-and-blogs/press-release/report-reveals-debts-true-damage-children-families
85	
Austin Turner, M., Edelman, P., Poethig, E., Aron, L., Rogers, M., & Lowenstein, C. (2014). “Tackling persistent poverty in
distressed urban neighborhoods.” Urban Institute http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/413179-TacklingPersistent-Poverty-in-Distressed-Urban-Neighborhoods.pdf
86	
The Leadership Conference. “Justice on trial: Chapter 1: Race and the police.” http://www.civilrights.org/publications/
justice-on-trial/race.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
87	
Fields, L. (2015). “Police have killed at least 1,083 Americans since Michael Brown’s death.” Vice News. https://news.vice.
com/article/police-have-killed-at-least-1083-americans-since-michael-browns-death
88	
Anderson, E. (2014). “What caused the Ferguson riot exists in so many other cities, too.” The Washington Post. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/13/what-caused-the-ferguson-riot-exists-in-so-many-other-cities-too/
89	
Harvey, T., McAnner, J., Voss, M., Conn, M., Janda, S., & Keskey, S. (2014). “Municipal courts white paper.” ArchCity
Defenders. http://03a5010.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ArchCity-Defenders-Municipal-CourtsWhitepaper.pdf
90	
St. Louis University School of Law and ArchCity Defenders (2014). “Significant victory towards open proceedings in
St. Louis County municipal courts.” http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/slulaw/sites/default/files/news/clinic_-_archcity_-_open_
courts_-_062614.pdf
91	
Missourians Organizing for Reform & Empowerment. “Transforming St. Louis County’s racist municipal courts.” http://
populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Transforming%20St.%20Louis%20County’s%20Racist%20Municipal%20
Courts%20(2).pdf
92	
Missouri Senate Bill 5 (2015). http://www.senate.mo.gov/15info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=160
93	
American Civil Liberties Union (2010). “In for a penny: The rise of America’s new debtors’ prisons.” https://www.aclu.org/
files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf
94	
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio (2013). “How Ohio’s debtors’ prisons are ruining lives and costing communities.”
http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TheOutskirtsOfHope2013_04.pdf
95	
The Supreme Court of Ohio (2015). “Collection of fines and court costs.” http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/02/OhioSupremeCourtBenchCard2014_02.pdf
96	
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services (2014). “Modern-day debtors’ prisons: How
court-imposed debts punish poor people in Washington.” http://columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/ModernDayDebtorsPrison.pdf
97	
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (2015). “Benton County debtors’ prison lawsuit: Frequently asked questions.”
https://aclu-wa.org/benton-county-debtors-prison-lawsuit-frequently-asked-questions
98	
Washington State House Bill 1390 (2015). http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1390&year=2015
99	
Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research (2015). “Bill analysis: HB 1390.” http://lawfilesext.
leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1390%20HBA%20JUDI%2015.pdf

Alliance for a Just Society | 13

100	
Washington State House Bill 1390 (2015). http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1390&year=2015
101	
Personal communication with staff from Statewide Poverty Action Network. September 2015.
102	
Brennan Center for Justice (2014). “Voting rights restoration efforts in Virginia.” https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/
voting-rights-restoration-efforts-virginia
103	
Ibid.
104	
Rogers, E. (2014). “Restoring voting rights to former felons.” Project Vote. http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/03/POLICY-PAPER-FELON-RESTORATION-MARCH-2014.pdf
105	
Governor Terry McAuliffe (2015). “Governor McAuliffe announces new reforms to restoration of rights process.” https://
governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=11651
106	
Secretary of the Commonwealth Levar M. Stoney. “Restoration of rights.” https://commonwealth.virginia.gov/judicialsystem/restoration-of-rights/

14 | Alliance for a Just Society

APPENDIX 1: TERMS TO KNOW
Bench Warrant
An arrest warrant issued by a judge when a person violates the rules of the court, most often for Failure to Appear.
Contempt of Court
A charge issued for not complying with court orders. For example, this can be issued along with Failure to Appear charges
or, in some cases, if a judge deems a person is willfully not paying their LFOs. A Contempt of Court charge often involves
jail time and/or additional fines.
Debtors’ Prison
The historical practice of jailing those with outstanding debts as a means of payment. Debtors’ prisons were officially
abolished by federal law in 1833 and affirmed as unconstitutional in 1983.
Failure to Appear
A charge issued when a person does not show up for a scheduled courtroom proceeding. A Failure to Appear charge can
lead to other charges like Contempt of Court, and/or to additional penalties including jail time or fines.
Fees
Costs added to the initial fine to fund other court or government expenditures such as  jail booking fees, bail investigation
fees, public defender application fees, indigent application fees, and payments to the jail for the cost of pretrial detention.
In some cases, fees cover other tangentially related expenditures such as employee fitness centers.
Fines
The initial cost of an infraction, such as a $100 fine for a traffic violation.
Legal Financial Obligation
The total debts owed to a federal, state or local court as the result of an infraction or crime. LFOs include the original
amount owed, as well as any surcharges, accumulated interest and penalties. Note that the definition in this report may
differ slightly from that of some state and local governments.
Pay-or-Stay
The practice of serving time in jail to offset unpaid LFOs.
Pay-to-Stay
Fees charged to inmates for room-and-board or other necessities, such as laundry services or feminine hygiene products.
Restitution
Money paid to victims for personal or property damage.
Willful Nonpayment
When a person chooses not to pay their LFOs despite an ability to do so. In most states, deciding whether nonpayment is
willful is up to an individual judge’s discretion.

APPENDIX 2: MODERN DAY DEBTORS’ PRISONS: HOW A $100 TRAFFIC TICKET CAN LEAD TO
THOUSANDS IN DEBT AND JAIL TIME
Following the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the Department of Justice found that the City
of Ferguson, like many state and local courts across the nation, not only disproportionately issues citations to
low-income blacks in an attempt to maximize revenue, but adds excessive fees, fines and arrest warrants for
those unable to pay.
In New York City, Kalief Browder’s inability to pay $3,000 bail for allegedly stealing a backpack resulted in
three years at Rikers Island jail, including two years in solitary confinement. Prosecutors eventually dropped
the charges due to lack of evidence, but the abuse he endured while incarcerated led to his suicide a year and
a half after he was released.
Across the country, poverty itself has become a crime. A $100 traffic ticket can result in thousands of dollars
in fines, years in the criminal justice system, and even incarceration. In the wake of the Great Recession, many
state and local courts throughout the country have created debtors’ prisons by using excessive fines and fees,
private collection companies, and the threat of jail to collect from defendants. Many are low-income and have
committed offenses as minor as unpaid parking tickets.
This resurgence of debtors’ prisons is prohibited by the 14th amendment; it’s unconstitutional to imprison
individuals for being poor. Here’s how court systems across the country have found legal loopholes to
effectively jail people for failure to pay:
1.	 Contempt of Court: A judge may not order jail for failure to pay, but they do have the authority to
determine whether nonpayment is “willful.” Judges can decide that a defendant is willfully not paying
their debt and jail them on the basis of contempt of court.
2.	 Driving with a Suspended License: In 47 states a driver’s license can be suspended for failure to pay
criminal debt, even if the original infraction had nothing to do with driving. Driving without a license
to get to work, care for family, or make court appearances, they are charged with a new criminal
infraction, steep fines and even jail time.
3.	 Failure to Appear: Defendants fail to show up to court for various reasons, including fear of being
arrested for not paying their fine. However, missing court altogether can lead to a failure to appear
charge, punishable by jail time and even more fines on top of their existing debt.
TERMS TO KNOW
LFOs: Legal financial obligations are the total debts owed to a federal, state or local court as the result of an
infraction or crime. LFOs include the original amount owed, as well as any surcharges, accumulated interest
and penalties. They originate from three main sources:
Fines imposed as a condition of sentencing, such as a $400 fine for public intoxication.
Fees added onto the initial fine, including jail booking fees, bail investigation fees, public defender
application fees, indigent application fees, and payments to the jail for the cost of pretrial detention.
This is how a minor traffic ticket balloons into a significant debt.
Restitution money paid to victims for personal or property damage.
Poverty Penalties: In addition to LFOs, the penalties, surcharges, and high interest rates charged by state and
local court systems and the private collection companies they contract make it difficult or impossible for poor
people to pay off legal debt.
Pay-to-stay: Jails sometimes charge a daily fee for room-and-board. (Note: some facilities charge additional
fees for laundry services, feminine hygiene products, and medical/dental care received while in custody.)

Pay-or-stay: If a defendant is unable to pay, a judge may impose a jail sentence to satisfy the debt. For example,
for each day served in jail, $25 is subtracted from the total amount owed, until the debt is satisfied. (Note: if the
jail charges for room-and-board, a person incurs new debts to pay upon release.)

How a $100 traffic ticket turns into a mountain of criminal debt
Sarah, a single mother with two children living in California, receives a $100 traffic ticket. With automatic fees
& assessments, she is unable to pay the $490 total due.

TRAFFIC CITATION: $100 + AUTOMATIC FEES & ASSESSMENTS: $390
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $490

Sarah misses the initial payment and is unable to miss work for the court hearing

FAILURE TO APPEAR FEE: $25 + 30 DAY LATE FEE: $300 + DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $815
Sarah must drive to work. She is pulled over for a broken taillight, charged with Driving with a Suspended
License and sentenced to five days in county jail.

BROKEN TAIL LIGHT CITATION & FEES: $125 + DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE FEE: $300 - $1000 + PUBLIC
DEFENDER APPLICATION FEE: $50 + ROOM-AND-BOARD FOR FIVE DAYS IN JAIL: $100
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $2090
Sarah starts a payment plan, but she lost her job and cannot make the first payment

PAYMENT PLAN FEE: $35 + LATE PAYMENT FEE: $50 + 12% INTEREST RATE
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $2501
Sarah is given two choices: pay debt in full within 60 days or serve jail time to “pay off” debt, costing the
county approximately $110 for every day she is in custody.

PAY-TO-STAY JAIL: EARN $30 OFF OF DEBT BALANCE FOR EACH DAY SERVED IN JAIL
JAIL TIME: 84 DAYS
Sources: Brennan Center for Justice of NYU Law School; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights; the National
Conference for State Legislatures

WWW.ALLIANCEFORAJUSTSOCIETY.ORG