by Michael Howell
Lawyers for Equal Justice Under the Law and Upper Seven Law firms have filed a Class Action lawsuit in Federal District Court challenging the legality of Ravalli County’s “Jail Diversion Program.” The case, Leonard et al v. Ravalli County et al, was filed in August 2021 and a jury trial was expected to begin March 9, 2026 in Federal District Court in Missoula. The case centers on allegations that people who have not been convicted of any crime are required to pay hundreds of dollars each month simply to remain free while awaiting trial, and that those who cannot afford the fees are jailed because of their poverty. While the case is rooted in Ravalli County, the issues at stake have broader implications for how low-income individuals are treated in the justice system nationwide.
The lawsuit claims that pre-trial arrestees, even after they are ordered released on bail or on their own recognizance, are assigned to the Jail Diversion Program for supervision pending trial and are not released until they sign a contract and have paid an arbitrary amount of fees to pay for program costs. They are also threatened to be returned to jail if they fail to pay ongoing pre-trial supervision fees. Pre-trial arrestees cannot challenge the fees that come with the Jail Diversion Program.
Attorneys in the case state that, “The primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to honor the presumption of innocence and to allow a defendant to prepare his case.” They allege that, “Ravalli County operates a wealth-based discrimination scheme, requiring pre-trial arrestees — who have not been found guilty of any crime — to pay exorbitant fees to get out and stay out of jail, without considering ability to pay.”
“Ravalli County, like many counties throughout the United States, has outsourced onto the backs of its poorest residents its obligation to fund its operations,” states the lawsuit. “Pre-trial arrestees — who have yet to have their day in court — are saddled with the expenses of pre-trial supervision, on top of having to be supervised and to comply with the onerous and complex rules that come with supervision. Jail time plus ongoing supervision — which can involve embarrassing and invasive GPS ankle monitors, alcohol-monitoring ankle devices, breathalyzers, twice-daily in-person drug tests, drug patches, curfews, and/or house arrest, among other requirements — is apparently not enough for Ravalli County. Pre-trial arrestees must also foot the bill — and under penalty of incarceration.”
As a result, some pre-trial arrestees stay in jail even after paying their bail because they can’t afford to pay the required diversion fees.
They claim that Montana law requires the release of all pre-trial arrestees upon reasonable conditions and thus presumes the availability of bail, except in cases that qualify for the death penalty. “The primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to honor the presumption of innocence and to allow a defendant to prepare his case,” they state. “Ravalli County ignores this presumption in favor of pre-trial release. Instead, it has adopted the Jail Diversion Program. By referring to pre-trial release as diversion from jail, Ravalli County views jail as the presumption, and release as the exception.”
“Returning to jail for not paying pre-trial fees is not the end of the nightmare for a pre-trial arrestee,” they go on to state, noting that the judges then impose a new bail amount for the pre-trial arrestee to be released, exacerbating the financial cost to obtaining pre-trial freedom.
According to the lawsuit, these fees also act as an extension of pre-trial arrestees’ bail amounts because they must be paid to be released from jail and to remain released from jail. Although money extracted prior to conviction (like bail bonds) must meet at least a minimal level of due process to be constitutionally sound, pre-trial fees have no such procedural protections.
Compounding the pre-trial arrestee’s situation is the imposition of new criminal charges based on their contract to enter the jail diversion program.
Attorneys in the case claim these fees also amount to violations of due process and equal protection for discriminating on the basis of wealth. Because the pre-trial arrestees’ ability to pay these fees is never assessed, when indigent pre-trial arrestees fail to pay these fees, Ravalli County’s Jail Diversion Program authorizes pre-trial arrestees to be incarcerated, even though their incarceration is due to their poverty.
“Such debtors’ prisons are unconstitutional,” it states in the lawsuit.
Attorneys in the case also argue that the fees are exorbitant. “If a pre-trial arrestee manages to get released from jail, her ongoing Jail Diversion Program fees routinely reach several hundred dollars per month. Pre-trial supervision alone is a $105/month fee — approximately five times the cost of supervision for persons on probation because of a felony conviction.’
Other fees can add up. Drug patches cost $75 in a one-time administrative fee plus $65 every ten days. Alcohol ankle monitors cost $75 in a one-time administrative fee plus $10 per day. A GPS ankle monitor costs $75 in a one-time administrative fee plus $390 per month. Those in the 24/7 sobriety “program” must pay $4 per day every day for twice-daily drug tests.
Many pre-trial arrestees are on multiple conditions simultaneously.
“Pre-trial fees,” they argue, “are exorbitant and far outside the financial reach of the indigent pre-trial arrestees who compose the vast majority of those who are brought before Ravalli County courts, including all Plaintiffs in the case.”
They offer as an example a person working full-time at minimum wage in Montana ($8.75/hour) who makes approximately $1,400 pre-tax per month. If the same person were on pre-trial supervision with a GPS ankle monitor (if she can manage to retain full-time work while having to wear a visible ankle monitor), she would likely be forced to pay $570 just to get out of jail [the cost of one month of supervision ($105) and GPS ankle monitor fees ($390) plus the one-time administrative fee for a GPS ankle monitor ($75)].
$570 is more than 40% of her pre-tax monthly income and is on top of whatever the person had to pay to post bail. Once released from jail, and having paid the one-time administrative fee, that same person would still be charged $495 in ongoing, monthly pre-trial fees ($105 for supervision and $390 for the GPS ankle monitor). $495 is more than 35% of a full-time, minimum-wage earner’s pre-tax monthly income.
As another comparison point, the average cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Hamilton (the largest city in Ravalli County) is $875/month. The example person described above — on supervision and with a GPS ankle monitor —working full-time at minimum wage would not be able to afford even a one-bedroom apartment and pre-trial fees. A person working full-time at minimum wage in Montana earns approximately $1,400 pre-tax. After paying for rent ($875 per month) and pre-trial fees ($495 per month), this person would have $30 left in her pre-tax monthly budget to cover everything else, including food, utilities, medicine, transportation, clothing, etc. for themselves as well as any of their dependents.
“Despite the exorbitance of these fees, at no point do Defendants consider pre-trial arrestees’ ability to pay before imposing these fees, before threatening jail time for non-payment, or before jailing for non-payment, effectively criminalizing pre-trial arrestees’ poverty,” state Plaintiff’s attorneys.
To top things off, participants in the diversion program are not allowed to take drug and alcohol tests if they do not have the money to pay for the tests, thus forcing pre-trial arrestees to violate the Jail Diversion Program (by both not paying for a test and missing a test).
In practice, they argue, pre-trial arrestees’ bail amount only serves as a down-payment on their pre-trial freedom. Pre-trial supervision fees are an ongoing extension of their bail; to not only get out of jail, but to also remain out of jail, pre-trial arrestees must pay pre-trial fees. Therefore, they reason, pre-trial fees should be subject to the same constitutional parameters and protections as bail. Yet these fees are imposed without the parameters and protections required under the law.
According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff Evenson-Childs’ case has been in pre-trial status for more than a year. She has been charged nearly $6,000 in pre-trial fees. Plaintiff Churchill’s and Plaintiff Leonard’s cases have been in pre-trial status for close to a year. Plaintiff Churchill has been charged over $3,000 in pre-trial fees and Plaintiff Leonard has been charged over $1000 in pre-trial fees. Every day additional fees accumulate. Plaintiffs have continued to assert their right to a trial, despite feeling the pressure to plea created by the exorbitant and burdensome pre-trial fees they are charged.
In total the Plaintiffs ask for relief on nine counts including:
• Violation of Procedural Due Process Regarding Deprivation of Property Interest in Fee Amount
• Violation of Procedural Due Process for Arbitrary Bail
• Status-Based Discrimination on the Basis of Homelessness
• Violation of Procedural Due Process Regarding Ability to Pay
• Violation of Procedural Due Process for Incarceration for Non-Payment of Fees
• Violation of Federal Equal Protection for Wealth-Based Discrimination
• Violation of State Equal Protection for Social Condition Discrimination
• False Imprisonment
• Violation of Due Process via Contracts Increasing Criminal Exposure
Plaintiffs ask the Court for a declaratory judgment that the ongoing practices of ordering participation in the Jail Diversion Program, failing to conduct ability-to-pay and risk assessments, and revoking pre-trial arrestees for non-payment of Jail Diversion Program fees, are unlawful.
They seek a judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the County from continuing the policies and practices as well as ordering the Sheriff to train all Sheriff’s Office employees on the injunctions.
They also seek a judgment compensating Plaintiffs and the Class of similarly-situated individuals for damages suffered, specifically all pre-trial fees paid and an order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Leave a Reply