(iStock.com/Moussa81)
Kendy Garrett estimates she's been arrested five times, but only once for any alleged crime.
All her other arrests were for failing to pay the Cleveland County, Oklahoma, district court.
Garrett, 56, originally owed $1,200 in court fines and fees after she was arrested in 2009 on misdemeanor charges related to drug paraphernalia. Despite paying $835 of that debt, she still owed $1,199 by the time of her final arrest in 2018, according to court documents.
"Every time you get arrested, those fines go up because you have to pay for being arrested, you have to pay for being in jail," Garrett told Law360.
Garrett, who at the time was living on disability benefits while she cared for her disabled son, couldn't afford those costs. So the court transferred her debt to a private collection company, which spent years harassing and threatening her with arrest, she said.
"I quit going out. I quit leaving my house. I quit grocery shopping," Garrett added. "I didn't go to the kids' school, because I know every time I leave I'm going to jail."
Most jurisdictions charge criminal defendants like Garrett some jail or court fees on top of any fines that serve as punishment. The fees' supporters say they're necessary to fund the jails and courts, and that taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for defendants' crimes.
But a growing group of activists, attorneys and legislators working to abolish these fees say they force indigent defendants to go without food and medicine or commit new crimes to find the money to pay them.
Some even wind up back in jail simply for failing to pay their debt.
"These are people who generally do not have the kind of money that they can easily pay the thousands and thousands of dollars they often owe as a result of even low-level offenses or sometimes traffic offenses," said Seth Wayne of Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
"These really seem like the kind of debtors' prisons that have been outlawed in American law since the beginning of this country," Wayne added.
Nearly every jurisdiction in the country charges criminal defendants some jail or court fees, although they vary widely, according to experts.
Anyone charged with a crime in Kentucky has to pay $140 to have their case resolved, whether that's through a plea, a trial or the payment of a traffic ticket, according to a July report from the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy.
Those convicted of drug- or alcohol-related offenses in Alabama must undergo an evaluation — $75 — and participate in monitoring sessions — $30 each — and drug testing — up to $60 per month, according to the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice.
In Oklahoma, where Garrett was arrested, criminal cases can come with 10 separate fees, including a "court cost," a law library fee and a court information system fee, according to a lawsuit that Wayne has filed to challenge the collection of those fees.
"Fees are done differently in every state, every county, every city, and even sometimes within the same court," said Joanna Weiss, co-founder and co-executive director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center. "Judge to judge, it can be different."
Jails often charge inmates fees as well, from booking costs to telephone charges to per-night room and board. Those fees aren't forgiven for those who are acquitted or have their charges dropped, according to experts.
These fees are not fines levied as punishment, but are charged in addition to those penalties and are usually intended to fill gaps in state and local budgets, according to Weiss, who pointed out that in the two years following the 2008 recession, 48 out of 50 states increased their court fines and fees.
Over the last five years, almost 73% of the monetary sanctions imposed by Pennsylvania courts were fees rather than punishment. In Idaho and Colorado, it was around 70%, according to research by the FFJC.
"This isn't about accountability," she said. "This is an attempt to raise revenue."
Alabama, for instance, uses the money it collects in court fees to fund the general function of the courts, district attorneys' office salaries and victim restitution, according to Elaine Burdeshaw, Alabama Appleseed's policy director.
That's how it should be, according to former California Assemblyman Bill Brough, a Republican who voted against ending court fees in that state. "Taxpayers should not cover expenses related to incarceration," Brough told Law360.
But the fees are actually an incredibly unreliable funding source since most defendants are indigent and can't afford to pay them, and most court debt is never collected, Burdeshaw said.
Whether a reliable revenue source or not, the fees often have devastating consequences for the people who owe them, according to those advocating for ending them.
Close to 83% of Alabamians paying off court debt reported giving up necessities like rent, food and medical bills to make payments, according to a survey Alabama Appleseed conducted in 2018. More than 38% admitted to committing a crime to pay off their debt.
"Clients have told me, 'I pay my fees before I pay rent because I don't want to go back to jail. I pay my fees before I buy food,'" said Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma attorney Ed Wunch, who helps people involved with the justice system to get out from under court debt.
Those who fail to pay that debt can get trapped in a Kafkaesque cycle in which they're charged for late or missed payments and also must pay a fee to make use of payment plans, activists say. Many states suspend the driver's licenses of those with unpaid court debt, making it difficult for them to attend court dates or go to work. Those who drive anyway face a misdemeanor conviction for driving on a suspended license — and more fines.
Some jurisdictions arrest and jail those who miss payments.
Over 2.5 million bench warrants related to court debt were issued by just 13 states between 2018 and 2022, according to the FFJC. More than two dozen states charge debtors a fee for issuing those warrants.
"The [U.S. Supreme Court] has made it clear that you are not allowed to jail people for unpaid fines and fees unless there is a determination that that nonpayment is willful, but it happens every single day," Weiss said. "All over this country, people are ending up in jail."
Challenging Court Fees — in Court
Activists and attorneys around the country are increasingly working to do away with these fees.
Garrett was one of several plaintiffs who sued 54 Oklahoma county sheriffs, the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association and debt-collection company Aberdeen Enterprizes II Inc. to challenge their fee-collection practices in federal court.
Several of the plaintiffs in that suit, which has stretched on since 2017, were arrested and jailed on debt-collection arrest warrants, allegedly at the behest of Aberdeen, which contracts with the sheriffs to collect unpaid debt, according to Wayne, who represents the plaintiffs.
Others were allegedly "extorted" into making payments they couldn't afford after Aberdeen threatened them with arrest, misled them about the law, and harassed them and their families in violation of the Fourth and 14th amendments, according to the lawsuit.
"We heard stories of dedicated phone lines in local Oklahoma jails for people who had been arrested for not paying this company to call the private company and negotiate the price of their release," Wayne said. "It really seems like a hostage scenario."
Aberdeen, its attorneys and multiple Oklahoma sheriffs did not respond to interview requests. The Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association declined to comment, as did several other sheriffs.
Iowa residents filed their own class action against Black Hawk County and its sheriff in 2024 over the county jail's practice of compelling individuals being released to sign confessions of judgment requiring them to pay a $25 booking fee and $70 per day in room and board for the time they spent incarcerated.
Inmates aren't given the opportunity to consult with an attorney or negotiate the agreement's terms, nor are they informed that by signing, they're waiving any right to judicial review, in violation of the 14th Amendment, according to that suit. If they fail to pay once released, the sheriff initiates civil reimbursement claims against them and garnishes their wages.
The sheriff's department collects about $300,000 in jail fees each year, and has used that money to pay for everything from a wellness app for employees to a gun range outfitted with cotton candy and ice cream machines and laser tag equipment, according to the suit.
"Using the money individuals rely on to put food on the table, pay their rent, and afford other living expenses, the [sheriff's] department provides perks to employees and funds activities entirely unrelated to the treatment of individuals detained at the jail," according to plaintiffs' amended complaint.
Black Hawk County's sheriff and the county's attorneys didn't respond to interview requests.
An Iowa federal judge dismissed the residents' suit in November, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. That dismissal is on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
An Oklahoma federal judge similarly dismissed Wayne's suit in 2021, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the plaintiffs' injuries resulted from state court actions. That dismissal was reversed by the Tenth Circuit, and the suit is ongoing.
But the legal challenge has already had an impact.
In 2023, the Oklahoma Legislature changed the law to establish cost hearings where judges determine if defendants can afford the fees they've been charged and to make it more difficult to arrest people for not paying those fees.
"I'm really glad that the Legislature is making efforts to reform some of the problems we point out in this lawsuit, but it doesn't fix everything," Wayne said, explaining that the practices he's challenging were already illegal, but the state's sheriffs employed them anyway.
"So there's no guarantee that just because the Legislature changed the law that these practices might actually change," Wayne said.
Legislative Momentum, Despite Opposition
That change to Oklahoma law has made it "a lot easier" for some people in the Sooner State to get out from under their court debt, according to Wunch, who works with defendants to do just that.
People who owe court debt can now request a cost hearing, or if they haven't made payments to the court for 90 days, they're issued a summons to appear for one. Judges can consider a person's income, expenses, child support obligations, and whether they receive government assistance when determining if they can afford to pay court fees, Wunch said.
Wunch and his colleagues at Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma used these cost hearings to wipe about $2 million in court debt across 650 cases last year, he said.
"People are walking in that have been worried about this debt for 20 years, and you see the tears, you see the weight lifted off their shoulders," Wunch added. "It's just this freedom that they get from their past."
Other states and jurisdictions are changing their laws as well.
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, forgave nearly $66 million in so-called pay-to-stay fees amassed by persons formerly incarcerated in the county prison in September, according to County Commissioner Justin Douglas, who championed that move.
The debt forgiveness only applies to previously accrued debt from the prison's room and board fees and not to existing debt from other fees or from the $125 booking fee the Dauphin County Prison began charging in 2023 after it did away with its pay-to-stay fees.
"So there is still debt that people can carry, but this was the overwhelming majority of the debt," said Douglas, who is working to eliminate some of that other debt as well.
In May, Oklahoma took another step by eliminating fees for electronic monitoring, applying for legal representation, and drug abuse treatment and education, among others. That same month, North Dakota legislators repealed courts' authority to assess supervision fees and eliminated costs for indigent defense services.
New Mexico eliminated post-adjudication and bench warrant fees and ended the practice of suspending driver's licenses due to court debt in 2023, a change to license suspension practices that New York state and Nevada also enacted. California stopped collecting 40 different fees imposed on defendants in 2020 and 2021.
Some legislators think those changes are misguided.
Brough, the former California assemblyman who opposed the legislation in that state, said the changes leave taxpayers on the hook for the costs of incarceration, and the state will have to reimburse counties $325 million for the loss of revenue.
Brough said he also opposed the legislation's lack of means testing.
"The vast majority of people who benefited from the relief provided by this bill are not offenders who are impoverished. Instead, the relief was ultimately to the benefit of offenders who had the means to pay the costs," he said.
New York state Sen. Anthony H. Palumbo, a Republican, has been similarly opposed to his state's legislative efforts to abolish mandatory surcharges and probation fees.
"There is nothing predatory about mandatory fees requiring defendants to pay into the crime victims fund and DNA fund after a conviction," Palumbo told Law360 in 2023. "This bill is one of many so-called reforms that continue New York state down the dangerous path of prioritizing criminals over victims."
The bill that Palumbo opposed and other iterations of it were introduced in several recent legislative sessions, but have all failed to pass.
But advocates for doing away with court and jail fees say they're optimistic that more reform is likely.
In the last year alone, the FFJC has helped pass fee-elimination bills in 10 states, according to Weiss, who said there's growing recognition that these policies are unsustainable and counterproductive.
"There is a lot more evidence that this is both bad economic policy in addition to sort of the moral problems with it," Weiss said.
But more still needs to be done, according to her and others.
"It doesn't work, and it's causing unbelievable harm," Weiss said of these fees. "So that is the next step — get rid of all the fees."
--Editing by Orlando Lorenzo and Jay Jackson Jr.
Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.