Case: Fuentes v. Benton County

15-2-02976-1 | Washington state trial court

Filed Date: Oct. 6, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This lawsuit relates to a practice that some local governments in the U.S. have of imposing jail or forced labor when indigent individuals convicted of a crime are unable to pay their fines, fees, costs, and restitution (Legal Financial Obligations, LFOs). In this case, the government of Benton County Washington had a practice of imposing fines on indigent persons convicted of criminal offenses without a determination of their ability to pay, and then subjecting those persons to jail time or fo…

This lawsuit relates to a practice that some local governments in the U.S. have of imposing jail or forced labor when indigent individuals convicted of a crime are unable to pay their fines, fees, costs, and restitution (Legal Financial Obligations, LFOs). In this case, the government of Benton County Washington had a practice of imposing fines on indigent persons convicted of criminal offenses without a determination of their ability to pay, and then subjecting those persons to jail time or forced labor if they failed to pay their LFOs. On October 6, 2015, the ACLU sued Benton County in Yakima County Superior Court, on behalf of three indigent persons who had been incarcerated or made to do manual labor, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief along with damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Washington state law for those named-plaintiffs and all other indigent persons threatened with jail time or forced labor for their inability to pay LFOs. They argued that Benton County’s practices violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Sections 3, 12, and 22, of the Washington State Constitution.

More specifically, the ACLU argued that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article 1, Sections 3 and 12 of the Washington State Constitution prohibit incarcerating a person for nonpayment of LFOs unless the court has first conducted an on-the-record inquiry and found either that the non-payment was willful (i.e. they had the ability to pay but refused), or that alternatives to incarceration or forced labor would be inadequate to satisfy a legitimate government interest in punishment or deterrence. The ACLU alleged that Benton County District Judges, acting pursuant to Benton County policy, failed to conduct the type of inquiry required by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Washington State Constitution. The ACLU also claimed that the Sixth Amendment, as well as Article 1, Sections 3 and 12 of the Washington State Constitution, entail that indigent persons facing sanctions for nonpayment of LFOs in a criminal case are entitled to counsel, and that Benton County had a policy of inadequately funding, training, or supervising the Benton County Office of Public Defense in its representation of indigent persons in those circumstances.

On June 1, 2016, plaintiffs and the ACLU reached a settlement agreement with Benton County, consisting of a number of changes to Benton County’s policies on LFOs along with attorney’s fees and costs for plaintiffs. The parties agreed that the terms of the settlement would last for a duration of five years, and the Yakima County Superior Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce those terms in response to a motion from the ACLU. The settlement also provided for further monitoring by the ACLU, with a provision requiring that the county sends the ACLU information on LFOs and LFO related issues every 6 months.

As a part of the settlement, courts are required to better inform persons with LFOs of court dates and obligations before issuing warrants. If the courts do issue a warrant, bail won’t be set at the total amount owed unless it is determined that the person is willfully refusing to pay his or her LFOs. Courts are also required to conduct inquiries about the ability of persons to pay LFOs at any hearings on nonpayment of LFOs. Persons with LFOs must also be given more freedom in their payment options, with the county being barred from refusing payments that are late or too small, and prohibited from referring non-payment to debt collection agencies unless payments are over 90 days past due and there is no pending motion seeking relief. The county also agreed to form a task force within 180 days of the settlement, that would work in partnership with the ACLU to evaluate the imposition of community service by the county on persons who are non-compliant with the LFOs. The task force the merits and legality of such service.

The settlement also requires ongoing training and education on LFOs for judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. This training and education is to include guidelines for assessing when non-payment of LFOs can be considered willful, defenses to nonpayment of LFOs, alternatives to LFOs, and alternatives to incarceration for failure to pay LFOs. Public defenders representing indigent persons with LFOs are also to be given better supervision and receive more funding in representing indigent individuals with LFOs.

Summary Authors

Ryan Berry (6/16/2016)

People


Attorney for Plaintiff

Adams, Elizabeth (Washington)

Choudhury, Nusrat Jahan (New York)

Dave, Prachi (Washington)

Hernandez, Vanessa T. (Washington)

Marshall, Toby James (Washington)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

15-2-02976-1

Docket[State Court]

Fuentes v. Benton County

May 20, 2016

May 20, 2016

Docket

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Complaint

15-2-02976-1

Settlement Agreement

June 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 11, 2023, 9:52 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Washington

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Special Collection(s):

Fines/Fees/Bail Reform (Criminalization of Poverty)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 6, 2015

Closing Date: 2016

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Indigent persons jailed or confined for inability to pay LFOs

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

Benton County (Benton), County

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: Attorneys fees plus $3,00

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Provide antidiscrimination training

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Training

Issues

Reproductive rights:

Fetus Identity

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Counseling

Courts

Discharge & termination plans

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Funding

Over/Unlawful Detention

Pattern or Practice

Poverty/homelessness

Quality of representation

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Commitment procedure

Habeas Corpus

Placement in detention facilities

Work release or work assignments

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Impact