AL Woman Claims Discriminatory Bail Violates U.S. Constitution

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

An incarcerated Alabama woman has filed a lawsuit against the Randolph County sheriff, the circuit clerk, the district court magistrate, and the district court judge over allegations that they violated her Constitutional rights. According to the complaint, nearly half the residents of Randolph County do not have jobs, but the only condition of their release upon detainment is whether they can afford a pre-determined amount of bail. This practice results in “systematic wealth-based detention,” the suit claims, and discriminates against people who live in poverty.

The plaintiff in the case is a 29-year-old woman who is almost eight months into a high-risk pregnancy and has two young children that depend on her, the complaint notes. She says she has been forced sleep on a mat on the jail floor, and will remain there for up to four weeks before her preliminary hearing. According to the suit, she was arrested for forging a $75 check and cannot afford to post her $7,500 bail.

According to the complaint, “[d]efendants do not consider a person's flight risk or danger to the community, whether a person can afford the predetermined amount of money, or whether any alternative non-financial conditions of release may mitigate any relevant risk before requiring the predetermined money bail amount.” It cites the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claiming that people who have been arrested are entitled to an “individualized release hearing” that will determine the “the least restrictive conditions on their pretrial liberty,” which the defendants allegedly failed to perform.

The suit presents the following examples of these “less restrictive” means to ensure that people will present themselves in court: unsecured bond, reporting obligations, phone and text message reminders of court dates, rides to court for those without transportation or a stable address, substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, counseling, alcohol monitoring devices, or electronic monitoring and home confinement. The suit argues that these options provide a better alternative to the defendants’ wealth-based detention practices.