Group Protests 'Pay-or-Jail' Sentences in Atlanta
The sentences "are not only unconstitutional, they undermine the integrity of Atlanta's criminal legal system," the letter from Southern Center for Human Rights attorney Sarah Geraghty says.
March 04, 2019 at 10:51 AM
3 minute read
Judges in Atlanta illegally impose “pay-or-jail” sentences on poor people, requiring them to pay a set fine or, if they're unable to pay, to spend time in jail, according to a legal advocacy group.
The Southern Center for Human Rights on Monday sent a letter to Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Atlanta Municipal Court Chief Judge Christopher Portis saying that imposing such sentences on people who cannot afford to pay violates the U.S. Constitution. The letter threatens legal action if the practice isn't ended.
“Pay-or-jail sentences imposed on homeless people who clearly cannot pay are not only unconstitutional, they undermine the integrity of Atlanta's criminal legal system,” the letter from Southern Center attorney Sarah Geraghty says.
The mayor's communications office and the chief judge did not immediately respond Monday to emails seeking comment.
The cases are often “explicitly recorded in court documents” as “FINE OR TIME” sentences, and the sentencing judges don't ask about the person's ability to pay, the letter says. Such sentences “appear to be almost exclusively visited upon the homeless and destitute.”
The Southern Center in September previously wrote to Portis in September, and copied the mayor and lawyers for the city, warning that the practice is illegal and urging the court to end it, the letter says.
In recent months, Geraghty wrote, the Southern Center has observed at least 59 cases when judges imposed such sentences. Those included the following people who pleaded no contest to the charges against them:
- A man charged with drinking beer on a city sidewalk who was sentenced to pay a $75 fine or spend 30 days in jail;
- A man accused of being disruptive at a hospital who was charged with disorderly conduct and was sentenced to pay a $200 fine or spend 10 days in jail;
- A woman charged with disorderly conduct and being disorderly while under the influence who was sentenced to pay a $200 fine or spend 10 days in jail;
- A man charged with being a pedestrian on a roadway who was sentenced to pay a $150 fine or spend five days in jail;
- A man charged with urinating on a city sidewalk who was sentenced to pay a $150 fine or spend two days in jail;
- A man accused of shoplifting two packs of meat who was sentenced to pay a $150 fine or spend five days in jail; and
- A woman accused of soliciting money on a train who was sentenced to pay $100 or spend three days in jail.
Many of them were homeless at the time and couldn't afford to pay the fines, so they all spent time in jail, the letter says.
A federal appeals court ruling from 1972 in a case originating in the Atlanta Municipal Court “unequivocally prohibits the Municipal Court from requiring an indigent defendant to pay a fine or serve a specified number of days in jail,” the letter says.
The letter asks for written assurance by March 20 that the court has issued an order to stop the practice and also to immediately take steps to release anyone currently in custody on such a sentence.
Copyright 2019 AP. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGeorgia Appeals Court Cancels Hearing in Election Interference Case Against Trump
3 minute readJustice Department Says Fulton County Jail Conditions Violate Detainee Rights
6 minute readSupreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect
- 2Simpson Thacher Launches in Luxembourg With Hires From A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance
- 3How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 4Big Firms May See 'Uncomfortable Flashbacks' as Cost Pressure Grows
- 5Decision of the Day: Judge Explains Ruling to Partially Sequester, Grant Anonymity to Jurors in MS-13 Murder Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250