Ravalli County jail diversion program bilks defendants, upends due process, plaintiffs allege

MISSOULA — A jail diversion program in Ravalli County upends important values of the justice system by forcing defendants to pay hundreds of dollars a month in fees before they’re ever found guilty, lawyers alleged Monday in federal court.

In the class action lawsuit, lawyer Phil Telfeyan of Equal Justice Under Law said one man who is disabled and whose only source of income is his Social Security check of $1,100 was billed $1,073 for the fees, leaving him $27 for all of his needs.

“He’s become homeless for the very first time in his life at 71 years old,” Telfeyan said.

In Leonard et al vs. Ravalli County, Telfeyan argued that many of the team’s clients are in the same boat as a result of the jail diversion program, which started in 2018.

Monday, the lawyers offered opening statements to jurors in Judge Dana Christensen’s courtroom in U.S. District Court of Montana in a trial expected to last roughly one week.

In the lawsuit, Daniel O’Toole, Richard Churchill and Keith Leonard argue Ravalli County needs to pay them back those pretrial fees — as much as $3,500 for O’Toole.

More importantly, however, Telfeyan said the plaintiffs want due process in Ravalli County. He said some aren’t even released from shackles before they’re forced to enroll in the program — but after they’ve posted bond.

Currently, Telfeyan said, Ravalli County has a program that doesn’t consider people innocent until proven guilty, has a jailer that’s also judge, and charges a “monthly subscription” for the price of freedom.

Judicial oversight doesn’t exist, and no one can even appeal the fees, Telfeyan said.

“In Ravalli County there’s more protection for a parking ticket than there is for the pretrial supervision fees,” Telfeyan said.

But lawyer Mitchell Young on behalf of Ravalli County said the program doesn’t violate due process, but sometimes, due process results in an outcome a defendant doesn’t want.

The Sheriff’s Office runs pretrial supervision, and Young said the idea behind it was to create a self-funded program and ensure accountability, which hadn’t taken place before 2018.

In the course of the trial, Young said the jurors would hear an argument that the defendants have a right to pretrial services at no cost, but the truth is that Montana law authorizes not only the services, such as alcohol and drug monitoring, it allows courts to charge individuals for them.

Additionally, Young said the state may deprive people of life, liberty or property with adequate due process, but depriving people of property doesn’t necessarily require as much process.

Defendants need to be heard, he said, but that doesn’t mean they need to like the answer.

“You are not guaranteed the outcome that you want,” Young said. “You’re guaranteed the opportunity for a hearing.”

On the first day of trial, the plaintiffs called their first two witnesses to the stand.

Sandra Martin, of Corvallis, testified that she was arrested for a failure to appear, and she had to pay $56 twice a week for urinalysis tests plus $105 a month for “pretrial services” — or $553 a month.

Martin said she didn’t ever get a call or a visit or help with housing or counseling as part of the pretrial fee, but she couldn’t afford to pay the costs anyway.

Her husband peeled logs for $1,600 to $2,000 a month while she cared for their grandchildren, for which the couple was financially responsible.

When Martin informed the pretrial supervision officers she couldn’t afford the fees, she heard it didn’t matter, she said.

“They said it was unfortunate, but I didn’t have a choice,” Martin said. “I was either going to pay the fine, pay the fees, or I was going to be kicked out of the program and go back to jail.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the fees are different from bail because that money eventually gets refunded to defendants — but some defendants continue paying off fees even years after their case concludes.

The lawyers also said the fees are much higher than fees for similar services after a case, when a defendant is on probation.

For example, Martin said she paid nothing for a urinalysis after she took a plea deal compared to nearly $450 a month beforehand, and she paid $25 for supervision afterward compared to $105 beforehand — but she received services for the $25.

She said it didn’t matter when her husband landed in the hospital and couldn’t work for more than three months, or that his wages were being garnished for emergency medical expenses from the Covid-19 pandemic.

“All that mattered to them was money,” Martin said.

She said her family faced an eviction notice and endured the financial stress and emotional trauma, and she is out $2,500. But she said her interest is in making sure other people in Ravalli County are treated fairly and don’t end up worse off because of the pretrial program.

“We don’t have a lot,” Martin said. “I just want things to be better, and for this not to happen to other people. Because I don’t think that it’s fair. You’re treated like you’re guilty.”

Under cross examination by Young, however, Martin acknowledged she had been found with a methamphetamine pipe in her possession, which led to new charges against her.

Martin also admitted she was able to post bond, although she said she had to borrow the money, and she said she only paid $100 or $200, even when bail was set at $40,000, in part because she had known the bondsman for a long time.

Martin acknowledged the program officers did allow her to take a free urinalysis test once or twice, and she admitted she signed a form admitting to having used meth, although she said she felt the officer would put her in jail if she didn’t sign the form.

She also argued her positive tests were the result of prescribed Adderall instead.

At one point, Martin had the chance to ask a judge to alter her pretrial conditions, but the judge disagreed. Under questioning, though, Martin agreed her lawyer had been able to make her arguments to the judge, although he didn’t grant her petition.

“But you did get a hearing?” Young asked.

“Yes,” Martin said.

Equal Justice Under Law, based in Washington, D.C., and the Bechtold firm of Missoula are representing the plaintiffs. The County Litigation Group is representing Ravalli County.

The trial is expected to continue Tuesday.