State Justice Improvement Act

II 116TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 3375 To amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to provide technical assist- ance and training to State and local courts to improve the constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines, fees, and monetary bail, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 3, 2020 Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. JONES, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to provide technical assistance and training to State and local courts to improve the constitutional and equitable en- forcement of fines, fees, and monetary bail, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 1 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Justice Improve- 4 ment Act’’. 5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 7 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 2 •S 3375 IS (1) The Supreme Court of the United States 1 has repeatedly held that the government may not in- 2 carcerate an individual solely because of the inability 3 of the individual to pay a fine or fee. 4 (2) In 2019, the United States Court of Ap- 5 peals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it is unconsti- 6 tutional to imprison people for failing to pay fines 7 and fees without inquiring into their ability to pay. 8 The Fifth Circuit also ruled that it is unconstitu- 9 tional for judges to determine ability to pay when 10 court debts help pay court budgets. 11 (3) Under section 3142 of title 18, United 12 States Code, Federal judicial officers may not im- 13 pose a financial condition that results in the pretrial 14 detention of an individual. 15 (4) In 2017, a report by United States Com- 16 mission on Civil Rights evaluated evidence that— 17 (A) 47 states increased their fines and fees 18 in recent years, including fines and fees im- 19 posed on juveniles; 20 (B) in Virginia, 1 in 6 drivers had license 21 revoked as a result of an inability to pay court 22 fines and fees; 23 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 3 •S 3375 IS (C) in New Jersey, 42 percent of sus- 1 pended drivers lost their jobs as a result of the 2 suspension; 3 (D) in the 50 cities with the highest pro- 4 portion of revenues from fines, the median size 5 of the African-American population in each city 6 was greater than 5 times the median in the 7 United States; 8 (E) in Washington, Latinos received higher 9 fine assessments than non-Latino Whites for 10 similar offenses; 11 (F) 10 counties in California detained ap- 12 proximately 700 people per month for an aver- 13 age of 3 days as a result of a failure to pay and 14 driving with a suspended license; and 15 (G) according to the Department of Jus- 16 tice on the investigation of the Ferguson Police 17 Department, revenue collection, not public safe- 18 ty, was the primary impetus behind the collec- 19 tion of fines and fees. 20 (5) There is no clear evidence that fines and 21 fees are an effective crime deterrent. 22 (6) Defendants released from custody with no 23 financial penalty return to court at the same rate as 24 defendants released on financial bond. 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 4 •S 3375 IS (7) The burden of fines and fees is dispropor- 1 tionately shouldered by low-income communities and 2 communities of color, which in turn aggravates and 3 perpetuates poverty and racial inequalities. 4 (8) Cities with larger Black populations fine 5 residents more on a per capita basis and are more 6 reliant on fines. A 1 percent increase in a Black 7 population is associated with a 5 percent increase in 8 per capita revenue from fines and a 1 percent in- 9 crease in share of total revenue from fines. 10 (9) In addition, data on the extent to which in- 11 dividuals are jailed or otherwise penalized because of 12 their inability to pay fee-only offenses are insuffi- 13 ciently developed, preventing a full picture of the 14 pervasiveness of targeted fees, as well as the repet- 15 itive impact on individuals from both low-income 16 communities and communities of color. 17 (10) Decisions regarding pretrial release or de- 18 tention adds financial stress to individuals unable to 19 pay monetary bail and the jails holding those unable 20 to pay. 21 (11) Individuals gave up necessities like rent, 22 food, medical bills, car payments, and child support, 23 in order to pay down their court debt. 24 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 5 •S 3375 IS (12) Thirty-eight percent of people surveyed 1 committed a crime to pay off their court debt. 2 (13) Driver’s licenses are often suspended auto- 3 matically when cases are transferred to private col- 4 lectors and are not restored until debts are paid in 5 full. 6 (14) Thirty States continue to require payment 7 of all legal financial obligations before voting rights 8 are restored, effectively disenfranchising individuals 9 because of an inability to pay. 10 (15) Many jurisdictions across the country rely 11 on fines and fees as a primary revenue source. 12 (16) A 2019 analysis of fine revenues found 13 that— 14 (A) fines are a critical source of funding, 15 at times accounting for more than half of all 16 general revenues; 17 (B) fines and fees account for more than 18 10 percent of general fund revenues for nearly 19 600 jurisdictions, and in at least 284 of those, 20 the share exceeded 20 percent, while another 80 21 governments reported even higher fines ac- 22 counting for more than half of general reve- 23 nues; 24 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 6 •S 3375 IS (C) annual revenues exceeding $100 for 1 every adult resident, while 363 exceeded $200 2 per adult in all the governments analyzed; 3 (D) the States with the highest fines and 4 fees revenue are Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, 5 New York, Oklahoma, and Texas; and 6 (E) jurisdictions where fines and forfeit- 7 ures accounted for more than 20 percent of 8 general fund revenues recorded a median house- 9 hold income of only $39,594. 10 (17) The dependency on fines and fees creates 11 a harmful incentive for courts to levy fines and fees 12 on indigent individuals regardless of the severity of 13 the crime. 14 (18) However, some jurisdictions spent more 15 than the revenue they raised collecting fees, there- 16 fore losing money through this system. 17 (19) In some jurisdictions like New Orleans the 18 cost of incarcerating individuals unable to pay fines, 19 fees, and monetary bail exceeded the revenue gen- 20 erated from those practices. 21 (20) Some jurisdictions in Texas and New Mex- 22 ico spent 41 cents of every dollar of revenue they 23 raise from fees and fines on in-court hearings and 24 jail costs alone. 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 7 •S 3375 IS (21) In almost every State and the District of 1 Columbia, juvenile courts impose court costs, fines, 2 and fees on youth, their families, or both. These 3 costs may increase recidivism, increase the potential 4 of future jail or prison time, exacerbate racial in- 5 equality, and increase the economic and emotional 6 distress of low-income families. 7 (22) Imposing fines and fees on minors and 8 their families is ineffective as a revenue-generating 9 measure, often because minors in the criminal jus- 10 tice system come from indigent families. Imposing 11 these fines and fees increases recidivism and eco- 12 nomic and emotional hardship on families. 13 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to create 14 a grant program to provide technical assistance and train- 15 ing to State and local courts to— 16 (1) improve the constitutional and equitable en- 17 forcement of fines, fees, and monetary bail; 18 (2) improve practices regarding the use of fines 19 and fees and their equitable enforcement when used; 20 and 21 (3) collect data to better understand the re- 22 search and best practices of State and local courts 23 on a Federal level. 24 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 8 •S 3375 IS SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 1 Section 202 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 2 (42 U.S.C. 10701) is amended— 3 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 4 end; 5 (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at 6 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 7 (3) by adding at the end the following: 8 ‘‘(9) ‘constitutionally adequate notice’ means a 9 citation or summons that adequately informs an in- 10 dividual of— 11 ‘‘(A) the precise offense with which the in- 12 dividual is charged; 13 ‘‘(B) the amount currently owed by the in- 14 dividual and other possible penalties; 15 ‘‘(C) consequences for nonpayment; 16 ‘‘(D) the method and means for accepting 17 payments; 18 ‘‘(E) the date of any court hearing; 19 ‘‘(F) the availability of alternate means of 20 payment; 21 ‘‘(G) the rules and procedures of the court; 22 ‘‘(H) the rights of the individual as a liti- 23 gant; and 24 ‘‘(I) whether the individual is required to 25 appear in court in person; 26 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 9 •S 3375 IS ‘‘(10) ‘fees’— 1 ‘‘(A) means monetary fees that are im- 2 posed for the costs of fine surcharges or court 3 administrative fees; and 4 ‘‘(B) includes additional late fees, pay- 5 ment-plan fees, interest added if an individual 6 is unable to pay a fine in its entirety, collection 7 fees, and any additional amounts that do not 8 include the fine; 9 ‘‘(11) ‘fines’ means monetary fines imposed for 10 punishment; 11 ‘‘(12) ‘monetary bail’ means a payment of 12 money or purchase of a surety bond to obtain the re- 13 lease from jail; and 14 ‘‘(13) ‘surcharge’ means a monetary amount 15 added to a fine as a flat amount or a percentage.’’. 16 SEC. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF FINES AND 17 FEES AND MONETARY BAIL. 18 (a) DUTIES OF THE INSTITUTE.—Section 203(b) of 19 the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 20 10702(b)) is amended— 21 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 22 end; 23 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at 24 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 10 •S 3375 IS (3) by adding at the end the following: 1 ‘‘(5) assist State and local courts in the con- 2 stitutional and equitable enforcement of fines and 3 fees.’’. 4 (b) PURPOSES OF GRANTS.— 5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 206(a) of the State 6 Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10705(a)) 7 is amended— 8 (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 9 the end; 10 (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the pe- 11 riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 12 (C) by adding at the end the following: 13 ‘‘(8) provide technical assistance and training 14 to State and local courts to develop and implement 15 best policies and practices for the constitutional and 16 equitable enforcement of fines and fees that incor- 17 porate guidance that— 18 ‘‘(A) courts should not incarcerate or issue 19 an arrest warrant for an individual for the non- 20 payment of a fine or fee without first con- 21 ducting an ability-to-pay determination and es- 22 tablishing that the failure to pay was inten- 23 tional; 24 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 11 •S 3375 IS ‘‘(B) courts should consider alternatives to 1 incarceration for defendants who are currently 2 unable to pay fines and monetary bail; 3 ‘‘(C) courts should not condition access to 4 a judicial hearing on the prepayment of a fine 5 or fee or a promise of future payment of a fine 6 or fee; 7 ‘‘(D) courts should provide constitutionally 8 adequate notices and counsel in cases in which 9 a fine or fee will be imposed; 10 ‘‘(E) courts should not initiate driver’s li- 11 cense suspension procedures for nonpayment of 12 a fine or fee; 13 ‘‘(F) if courts choose to issue an arrest 14 warrant or suspend a driver’s license as a 15 means of coercing an individual to pay a fine or 16 fee owed to the court, courts should not do so 17 if the individual has not been afforded constitu- 18 tionally adequate procedural protections; 19 ‘‘(G) courts should determine the ability to 20 pay of an individual at sentencing prior to de- 21 termining a constitutional and equitable fine 22 and fee; 23 ‘‘(H) courts should reduce and waive fines 24 and fees if the court has discretion in cases 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3375.IS S3375 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS 12 •S 3375 IS where the imposition of fines and fees would be 1 unconstitutional and inequitable or cause undue 2 hardship to the individual; 3 ‘‘(I) courts should avoid adopting manda- 4 tory fines and fees for misdemeanors and traf- 5 fic-related and other low-level offenses and in- 6 fractions; 7 ‘‘(J) courts should grant judges the au- 8 thority and discretion to modify sanctions after 9 sentencing if the circumstances of the defend- 10 ant change, including that the ability of the de- 11 fendant to pay a fine or fee becomes a hard- 12 ship; 13 ‘‘(K) courts should adopt education re- 14 quirements for judges and court personnel on 15 issues related to all relevant constitutional and 16 procedural principles relating to fines and fees; 17 ‘‘(L) courts should not impose a fine, fee, 18 or any other penalty for the participation of an 19 individual in community service programs or 20 other alternative sanctions; 21 ‘‘(M) if courts utilize community service 22 programs or alternative service sanctions, best 23 practice and standards for those programs 24 should be used, including fair wage attribution, 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Mar 04, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]