Pay-For-Stay Program Violates Detainees’ Rights, Class Action Says

A former detainee at an Ohio jail says the Marion-Hardin Corrections Commission’s pay-for-stay program violates the U.S. Constitution and Ohio law.

Plaintiff Cory Bonsel says defendant Marion-Hardin Corrections Commission is unlawfully charging fees to detainees at the local Multi-County Correctional Center.

The fees are purportedly assessed under a state-authorized pay-for-stay program designed to make detainees pay the costs of their detention and processing.

Bonsel argues that by charging fees based on pre-conviction detention, the Commission is violating provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that prohibit taking private property without due process of law.

He also argues that the Ohio statute authorizing the program only allows the Commission to assess fees based on post-conviction detention, and that any fees assessed for pre-conviction processing are in violation of that statute.

Bonsel points out several aspects of the pay-for-stay program that he claims violate Constitutional due process requirements.

The plaintiff says the program does not give proposed Class Members proper notice of the seizure of their property or a hearing that would give them an opportunity to object to that seizure.

He argues the program “impermissibly places the burden on Named Plaintiff and members of the Class to seek refunds of money.”

Bonsel notes that there are no procedural safeguards in place to ensure that Class Members’ money will be returned to them in the event they are acquitted or not charged with a crime.

The plaintiff also argues that the pay-for-stay program violates the Ohio statute that enables the local board of commissioners to set up a pay-for-stay program.

He quotes that statute as allowing municipalities to assess fees to “a person who was convicted of an offense.” By charging fees prior to conviction, and by assessing fees to persons who were ultimately acquitted or not charged, the Commission exceeds the authority granted by the statute, Bonsel argues.

Bonsel says he himself was charged a $150 booking fee and a $100 per diem fee for each day of his pre-trial confinement after he was arrested on a felony charge in June 2013.

He wants to represent a Class consisting of all individuals assessed booking and per diem fees under the Commission’s pay-for-stay program whose fees were either assessed prior to conviction or were calculated based on pre-conviction confinement.

The proposed Class would include those who paid fees despite being acquitted or having their charges dismissed; those assessed fees without a hearing to determine their ability to pay; those assessed fees despite having their fines, fees and costs waived as a condition of sentence; those who are indigent, disabled, or receiving governmental assistance; and those who were determined to be indigent at arraignment and assigned legal counsel.

Bonsel is asking the court for a declaratory judgment stating that fees assessed under the applicable Ohio statute may be assessed only for post-conviction costs that begin upon commencement of the defendant’s sentence.

He also seeks an injunction against further alleged violations of the Class Members’ civil rights and disgorgement of funds he says were improperly collected through the pay-for-stay program.

Bonsel is represented by attorneys Jeffrey C. Zilba, Corey L. Tomlinson and Dennis E. Sawan.

The Marion-Hardin Corrections Commission Pay-For-Stay Class Action Lawsuit is Cory A. Bonsel, et al. v. The Marion-Hardin Corrections Commission d/b/a Multi-County Correctional Center, Case No. 3:16-cv-01988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division.