DENVER - The ACLU of Colorado filed a lawsuit in federal court this morning against El Paso County on behalf of Jasmine Still, a Colorado Springs resident who was held in jail for 27 days after a court granted her release, without payment of money, through a personal recognizance bond (PR bond). Despite the court’s order, El Paso County continued to hold Ms. Still, because she was unable to pay a $55 fee for El Paso County Pretrial Services.

According to the lawsuit, El Paso County has a policy of continuing to imprison people who have been granted a PR bond if they cannot pay the county-imposed fee. This policy has caused the illegal imprisonment of hundreds of pre-trial detainees, who are innocent in the eyes of the law and have only been charged with, not convicted of, a crime.

“The court determined that Ms. Still was not a flight risk or a danger to the community and that she deserved to be free while her case was pending, yet El Paso County held her in jail for nearly a month solely because she could not afford to pay a $55 fee,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein. “Jailing someone because of their poverty is not only cruel, it is unconstitutional.”

“We estimate that, in a one year period, El Paso County held over 300 defendants in jail for a total of more than 3000 days only because they couldn’t come up with the money to pay a $55 fee,” said ACLU of Colorado staff attorney Rebecca Wallace.  “Putting aside the illegality of the County’s practice, it makes no economic sense.  Waiving those fees would have cost the County about $16,000, but jailing those defendants who could not pay cost taxpayers more than $266,000.”

Still had never before been arrested, booked into a jail, or charged with a crime. While incarcerated for 27 days, she was separated from her newborn child, and child custody proceedings were initiated against her.  In order to fight for her children, she decided she had no choice but to plead guilty to secure her release, rather than fight her case.

“Every day I was in jail, I thought there had to have been some kind of mistake.  I didn’t think you could jail someone just because they were poor,” said Still. “I am fighting back not just for me, but for all of the other people who El Paso County has kept in jail because they couldn’t scrape together $55.”

“Ms. Still’s story underscores the unjust and needless costs of pretrial incarceration,” said Wallace.  “Pre-trial jail stays can and do cause legally innocent people to lose out on pay, lose their job, lose custody of their children, lose their housing and lose their vehicle.  With all of these pressures building on pretrial defendants, it is no wonder that many defendants plead guilty just to get out of jail.”

Earlier this year, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that the El Paso County Jail was “bursting at the seams” after the population surged to more than 1,750 inmates. 

“If El Paso County wants to decrease the number of inmates in its jails and also save money, it should start by immediately releasing those whom the court has ordered released on personal recognizance,” said Silverstein.

In addition to asking for compensation for Ms. Still and additional plaintiffs who may later be added to the suit, the ACLU seeks to end the unconstitutional policy of jailing defendants who are too poor to pay a $55 fee.

more on this case

https://soundcloud.com/thepurplestatereport/local-elections-matter
Subscribe to our podcast.

On this bonus podcast, we highlight a local Colorado election that could have huge implications for the future of our public schools and the integrity of our state constitution. Out of state interests are pouring piles of money into Douglas County to revive a private school voucher scheme that was declared unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court because it illegally funnels taxpayer money to private, religious schools. We talk to Cindy Barnard, President of Taxpayers for Public Education, who was there at the start of the program and organized concerned parents and residents to fight it. We also interview two representatives from Disability Law Colorado, who explain how vouchers are used to discriminate against and harm children with physical and developmental disabilities.

To learn more about vouchers and the Douglas County election, go to: https://aclu-co.org/vouchers/

Call To Action: Alejandra highlights the importance of voting in local elections. To register to vote or to find your closest polling place and ballot drop-off site, go to: http://www.justvotecolorado.org/

The Purple State Report is brought to you by the ACLU of Colorado. Our show was produced by Vanessa Michel, Alejandra Garza, and John Krieger with original theme music by Pablo Novelas. Additional music by Rocky Mountain Children's Choir. If you have feedback or suggestions for future episodes email us at [email protected]. We’ll be back in two weeks with another episode of The Purple State Report—and remember; stay engaged, stay connected, and stay vigilant.

DENVER – The Denver District Court affirmed a lower court ruling finding Denver’s park exclusion directive unconstitutional because it denies fundamental due process rights.

In a decision filed Wednesday, the court upheld a complete dismissal of criminal charges against Troy Holm, an ACLU of Colorado client who faced a year in jail for entering a park after he was banned under the directive.

“By authorizing police to issue so-called “Suspension Notices” that immediately made it a crime to enter a public park, Denver attempted an end run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein. “The court’s ruling affirms a bedrock principle of due process: the government cannot take away our rights without first providing, at a minimum, notice of the accusation and a fair opportunity to defend against it.”

The temporary exclusion directive was initiated by the Parks Department without an ordinance or vote of the City Council on September 1, 2016. It authorized police to summarily banish people from city parks, without a hearing, conviction, or other due process, based on mere suspicion of illegal drug activity. According to the directive, a person “need not be charged, tried or convicted of any crime, infraction, or administrative citation” for a suspension notice to be issued or effective.

Denver officials justified the directive as necessary to combat what they characterized as a “huge epidemic of heroin use” and associated violent behavior in the parks. However, an ACLU review of every suspension notice issued in the first five months of the directive revealed that expulsions primarily targeted persons experiencing homelessness who were suspected of simple consumption or possession of marijuana. This despite a pledge in writing from the Denver City Attorney’s office to the ACLU that the “illegal drug activity” targeted by the program would not include marijuana.

On October 14, a police officer handed Troy Holm a suspension notice based on suspicion of marijuana use. Two days later, he was charged with a misdemeanor for violating the notice and for trespassing simply because he came back to the park.

ACLU of Colorado filed a motion to dismiss on Holm’s behalf in December, challenging the constitutionality of the charges and the directive. In February, the County Court ruled the directive unconstitutional and dismissed the charges. The City then appealed to the District Court.

In Wednesday’s ruling, the court said that the use of public facilities such as parks is a “fundamental” right that can be outweighed only by “compelling governmental interests.” In this case, the court said, Denver abridged a “natural, essential and inalienable right” to be present in public spaces, without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

“Denver’s policy of banishing people from public places on the spot was an unconstitutional violation of Mr. Holm’s civil rights,” said ACLU of Colorado cooperating attorney Adam Frank, who represented Holm in court. “The ruling of the appeals court affirms that Denver cannot criminalize people’s daily existence and violate their rights with impunity.”

“The temporary park banishment directive expired in February,” Silverstein said. “Denver officials have said that they plan to propose a permanent rule with the same provisions. Hopefully, this ruling will persuade Denver to abandon its unconstitutional plan.”

more on this case