UPDATED: Ravalli County pretrial fees lawsuit goes to jury for deliberation

A group of Ravalli County residents who went through the county's pretrial supervision program are suing Ravalli County, saying the program's fees violate due process and are unjustly high. Here's the latest as of Thursday afternoon:

This story will be updated throughout the trial.

The Basics

This is a class-action lawsuit, meaning though only three plaintiffs are named, they represent a larger group of people. The lawsuit is on behalf of anyone who's gone through the Ravalli County pretrial program while unable to pay the fees. It was first filed in 2021. It's being held before U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula's federal courthouse.

The case is about Ravalli County's pretrial supervision program, called the Jail Diversion Program, which was started by the sheriff's office in 2018.

Monday: Opening statements 

Lawsuit claims Ravalli County pretrial program charges hundreds without due process

Attorneys for both sides presented their opening statements on Monday afternoon after selecting a jury of seven.

Plaintiff's lead attorney Phil Telfeyan, who runs the D.C.-based civil rights law firm Equal Justice Under Law, said his clients were charged hundreds of dollars of fees every month without judicial oversight or the ability to appeal fee amounts. He said his clients risked being jailed if they couldn't pay and that the fees, which could be as high as $1,000 per month, caused undue financial hardship.

Ravalli County's attorney Mitch Young said the conditions of pretrial could be appealed and collecting pretrial fees is authorized under Montana law. Young said the sheriff's office is flexible and works with people, and that no one is being sent to jail solely for inability to pay.

Tuesday: Plaintiff witnesses

The plaintiffs started calling their witnesses on Monday afternoon, which continued into Tuesday.

They started with Sandra Martin, who said she was placed on drug monitoring at over $500 per month. Martin testified that she frequently was unable to pay for urinalysis tests, and while she was sometimes allowed to test anyway, she was often told that it would be marked as a violation that could potentially get her bail revoked. She said that she was eventually sent to jail for nonpayment.

Young called Martin's story into question during cross-examination, pressing her on dirty test results. Martin said she had been pressured by pretrial officers into signing affidavits that she'd used illegal drugs.

Plaintiff Heidi Hutchison reported similar hardship as a single mom paying $593 per month for supervision after a DUI arrest. Her case was dismissed almost three months later when her blood draw came back clean, she said.

Hutchison testified that she lived paycheck to paycheck, with only $20 left over at the end of each month. She said since she paid all of the pretrial fees, she had to get help from friends and family and ask for leniency from her landlord.

"If my landlord wasn't so lenient with me, I would have been out on the street with my boys," Hutchison said.

Hutchison said even with that help, she had to cancel her internet, Netflix, and family activities with her sons.

Charles Post, another plaintiff, testified that he is currently paying $1,073 every month in pretrial fees out of the $1,100 monthly check he receives from Social Security as his sole income.

"If I don't they'll put me back in jail and take away my freedom, what little I have," Post said.

Post said he's been made homeless as a result, unable to find any housing with only $27 left over each month.

Plaintiff Keith Leonard said he also lives on a fixed Social Security check at $700 every month. He had to pay $175 every month for his pretrial conditions, and had to give up propane as a result, leaving his RV cold at night, he testified.

Leonard eventually pleaded no contest to the charge he was on pretrial supervision for, and testified that he's now on parole with the same conditions — but doesn't pay any money for them.

During cross examination, Ravalli County attorneys said Leonard and Post both had their supervision fees, which are added to everyone's fees in addition to equipment costs, reduced because they were on Social Security.

Plaintiffs also called Ryan Archibald, former managing attorney for Ravalli County's public defenders. Archibald said he was initially excited about the county's pretrial program when it started, but that excitement faded when he saw the impact that high fees had on his clients.

"I saw them making decisions on if they should pay rent or pay the fees. If they should buy food or pay the fees," Archibald said.

Ravalli County Sheriff Stephen Holton was also called by the plaintiffs. He testified about the history and financials of the program. He said the fees were set at a level that could cover testing costs, equipment costs, upkeep and the salaries of the two full-time pretrial officers. Holton said that his office worked with clients to make payment plans and wouldn't send anyone to jail just for not being able to afford their fees.

The plaintiffs also called Deputy Chris Colgan, who administers the pretrial program. Telfeyan pointed to testimony from Colgan's deposition where he alluded to people staying in jail until they could pay their fees. Telfeyan also showed emails from Colgan addressed to other members of county administration and government.

In one email, Colgan wrote "it is not our problem if their payments cannot be made. This was the deal. Several are loosing [sic] sight of this concept."

Wednesday: Additional witnesses, motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs called two witnesses Wednesday morning: one of their clients, and pretrial officer Kitti Wallace. In cross-examination, Wallace said the pretrial program offers leniency for when people have to pay their fees and works with clients to figure out payment plans. She said defendants aren't sent back to jail just for being unable to pay.

During examination, Telfeyan showed two requests for the courts to revoke bail filed by the sheriff's office that listed nonpayment as the sole reason.

The plaintiffs then rested their case in chief, meaning they won't call any more witnesses.

Telfeyan was optimistic about the case after resting.

"The witnesses all testified to the egregious policies of the pretrial program in Ravalli, and I think the jury saw how much harm is being done by the program," Telfeyan said.

After the jury was excused, one of the attorneys for Ravalli County, Maureen Lennon, asked the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs' false imprisonment claim. This is just one of the plaintiffs' claims — most of the claims relate to violation of due process and equal protection.

Christensen agreed with Lennon's motion, finding there hadn't been any evidence presented that anyone had been falsely imprisoned. He dismissed the false imprisonment claim, meaning the jury will not be asked to rule on whether anyone was falsely imprisoned.

The county then began their defense case by calling Ravalli County district court judge Jennifer Lint. Lint said she had no authority to review or reduce pretrial fees, but did work with defendants to provide flexibility on pretrial conditions.

Thursday: Final witnesses and arguments

After the defense wrapped up its case, parties put forth their closing arguments on Thursday.

Young said the plaintiffs were taking issue with state decisions that the county couldn't be held responsible for, such as prosecutors pressing charges or judges imposing conditions.

"This case is not about pretrial services. This case is really about dissatisfaction with the judge's decisions," Young said.

Young also cast doubt on the credibility of some of the plaintiffs' witnesses who testified over the course of the trial. For instance, he alluded to testimony from Lint that she had scheduled a hearing for one of the witnesses to talk about his financial situation and evaluate if he could pay for his conditions, but he fully paid his fees before that hearing. Young also mentioned that Martin, despite claiming she'd had her bail revoked solely for inability to pay for tests, had tested positive for meth use on several occasions while on pretrial supervision.

Young also referenced testimony from pretrial employees who said they didn't arrest people for failure to pay and tried to work with clients on payment plans.

"The evidence in this case shows that Ravalli County provides due process to the people who are ordered to the program," Young said.

Young pointed out that the pretrial fees are attached to pretrial conditions, which are ordered by a judge and can be appealed in court.

In rebuttal, Telfeyan said the plaintiffs took no issue with the conditions themselves. He said none of his clients were arguing they shouldn't have had to take drug tests or be fitted with an ankle monitor, or that those conditions were imposed without due process.

The problem, Telfeyan said, is that the fees themselves don't have due process. Though court orders signed by judges assign people to pretrial conditions, they don't mention how much those people will have to pay in fees, and most court orders don't mention fees at all.

And, Telfeyan said, though judges can modify conditions of release, they can't modify how much those conditions cost.

Telfeyan said Young's issues with the witnesses' credibility didn't affect the issues of the case.

"The one thing that remains uncontested is that the fees are exorbitant," Telfeyan said. "Everything else is a distraction."

He concluded by emphasizing some essential elements of due process he said Ravalli County was not meeting.

First, Telfeyan said, defendants don't get adequate notice of the fees, because they're first told about the fees when they enroll in pretrial services, not in court by a judge.

Second, Telfeyan said, defendants don't have an opportunity to be heard about the fees by an impartial decision-maker, because judges can't alter or waive the fees themselves.

After closing arguments, the case was turned over to the jury to deliberate. The jury will decide whether Ravalli County violated due process and whether it must pay the three class-action representatives back the pretrial fees they paid.