William Fleming didn’t go to jail for domestic violence.
He went to jail because he was poor.
Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court , and in doing so sent a message to judges throughout the state:
Missouri has a court costs problem.
“This issue has been lurking for a long time,†says public defender Amy Lowe, who works in the appellate division of the state public defender’s office in ºüÀêÊÓƵ, and represents Fleming. “I think right now, (because of the court’s decision) we’re going to see people take this seriously for perhaps the first time. People are on notice that the situation of high court costs is a problem and the Supreme Court is paying attention.â€
Fleming’s court troubles started in July 2008.
People are also reading…
That’s when he pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic violence in St. Francois County, a rural county about an hour south of ºüÀêÊÓƵ.
Circuit Court Judge Sandra Martinez sentenced Fleming to seven years in prison but suspended the sentence. for five years with a few stipulations. He had to stay away from the victim in the case. He had to attend an anger management class. He couldn’t be in possession of a “bladed instrument in excess of 4 inches.â€
And he had to pay his court costs in the next three years.
Fleming, who is bipolar, was living on federal disability checks of about $450 a month. His court costs, which included a bill for the time he was in the county jail after being arrested, came in at $4,263.50. Even if he paid 25 percent of his income every month, the bill would remain unpaid in the time allotted.
The Fleming made payments every month, first in $10 installments set up by his probation officer, then $50 payments requested by the court. He fulfilled the other requirements of his probation, but three years later there was still a balance due.
The judge hauled him in and asked if he had paid the court costs in full.
Fleming said no.
Next stop: Algoa Correctional Center.
It is the rural version of the story that brought Ferguson and the municipal courts in north ºüÀêÊÓƵ County to national attention for preying on poor people in order to fund city operations that have a tax base that can’t keep up. The Missouri Legislature’s response to the problem was to pass Senate Bill 5 in 2015, a bill that put new limits on the amount of revenue municipalities could collect from traffic fines.
When the Legislature passed that proposal overwhelmingly — only three senators voted against it — lawmakers referred to the practice of using traffic fines to raise money for struggling cities as “taxation by citation.â€
Now one of those senators, Ed Emery, a Republican from Joplin, wants to repeal the bill just two years later and replace it with one that will actually .
The proposal hasn’t received a hearing yet, so it’s likely not going anywhere, but in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Fleming case, it’s a stark reminder that the battle over court costs has enemies in high places.
One of the reasons, Lowe surmises, is that the people often saddled with them, people like William Fleming, aren’t the most sympathetic characters. They have, in most cases, broken the law. They are often poor. They are at the mercy of the court.
“My clients can’t complain very much,†Lowe says. “It’s very easy to dehumanize them and use them to raise money for government services.â€
It’s a problem older than the law itself.
Since 2013, Overland Municipal Judge Frank Vatterott has been trying to get the Missouri Supreme Court to fund sheriffs’ retirements. His legal argument goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, the English charter agreed to by King John in 1215 that tamped down a rebellion over high taxes. Article 40 of that document says simply that there will be . In other words, the courts cannot erect financial barriers that keep poor people from having access to the courts.
That argument is also at the crux of the Fleming decision, written by Chief Justice Patricia Breckenridge.
“If probation is doled out entirely on your ability to pay, then it seems you are discriminating against the poor,†Lowe says.
In telling Missouri judges that they cannot send poor people to jail simply because they can’t afford ever-increasing court costs in the state, the Supreme Court stabs at the problem with a double-edged sword. It slices away a source of revenue for cash-strapped cities and counties, but cuts at the court’s own orders that justify the high court costs in the first place.