Why are "court fees" legal when you're not convicted of anything?
December 15, 2014 6:54 PM Subscribe
Why are "court fees" legal when you're not convicted of anything? If all charges against a person have been dismissed, or you've been found not guilty, why is a court still allowed to penalize you monetarily?
I was arrested for supposedly shoplifting at a big-box store. I'm not sure why this happened - I didn't shoplift anything. The police were summoned, I was taken into custody, the whole deal.
I got my day in court, and the security guy from the big-box store showed up and exploded in anger when he saw me, saying that's not guy in the [video clip], what the [string of expletives].
So all charges were dismissed, and I figured that would be the end of it ... except on the way out, I was very politely informed that of course I would still have to pay a $350 "court fee".
What gives?
I was arrested for supposedly shoplifting at a big-box store. I'm not sure why this happened - I didn't shoplift anything. The police were summoned, I was taken into custody, the whole deal.
I got my day in court, and the security guy from the big-box store showed up and exploded in anger when he saw me, saying that's not guy in the [video clip], what the [string of expletives].
So all charges were dismissed, and I figured that would be the end of it ... except on the way out, I was very politely informed that of course I would still have to pay a $350 "court fee".
What gives?
I don't know much about the law here, but it's ptobably worth consulting a lawyer to see if you can A. get the fees waived or (more likely) B. sue someone for their recovery. $350 puts it in the realm of small claims court, which is quick and easy.
posted by Itaxpica at 6:57 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Itaxpica at 6:57 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]
Courts in the US have gotten pretty ridiculous about court fees - NPR has done a lot of segments about it - but in a case like this, I'm not sure how they can possibly justify this.
IANAL, but it would seem like you have a civil case against the big box store. If I was in a similar situation and I didn't want to go this route -- assuming it was a municipal court I might be complaining to a city councilman or the mayor's office, looking for a waiver on this.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:03 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
IANAL, but it would seem like you have a civil case against the big box store. If I was in a similar situation and I didn't want to go this route -- assuming it was a municipal court I might be complaining to a city councilman or the mayor's office, looking for a waiver on this.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:03 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
Update - I've just discovered exactly how naive I am...
http://www.wbez.org/story/innocent-defendants-still-have-pay-court-fees-cook-county-97311
but apparently in Florida it's mandated that defendants found not guilty are reimbursed:
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/08/28/george-zimmerman-asks-florida-pay-legal-fees
In the circumstances you describe, I'd pursue a civil case.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:07 PM on December 15, 2014
http://www.wbez.org/story/innocent-defendants-still-have-pay-court-fees-cook-county-97311
but apparently in Florida it's mandated that defendants found not guilty are reimbursed:
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/08/28/george-zimmerman-asks-florida-pay-legal-fees
In the circumstances you describe, I'd pursue a civil case.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:07 PM on December 15, 2014
Same reason fines are legal when you haven't been convicted of anything.
posted by pompomtom at 7:20 PM on December 15, 2014
posted by pompomtom at 7:20 PM on December 15, 2014
In the interest of getting reimbursed as quick as possible I would probably call the big box store's customer service and ask what they can do for you, when that fails then call the corporate number and explain what happened.
I like to imagine in these scenarios someone at the corporation would want to know that the security at a store is taking innocent people to court and leaving them with the fees. I don't think you should spend more than an hour on the phone though, you should be able to suss out whether or not you are going to be heard by someone who cares pretty quickly.
posted by grizzly at 7:40 PM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
I like to imagine in these scenarios someone at the corporation would want to know that the security at a store is taking innocent people to court and leaving them with the fees. I don't think you should spend more than an hour on the phone though, you should be able to suss out whether or not you are going to be heard by someone who cares pretty quickly.
posted by grizzly at 7:40 PM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
Sometimes this is the kind of thing that local consumer reporters can help with -- like, at your local news station, or local newspaper.
posted by BlahLaLa at 8:01 PM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 8:01 PM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]
You need a lawyer. There was a case here in portland several years back where a woman was arrested for "stealing" from the deli at a grocery store. Camera footage showed she paid & was not given a receipt. She sued & won half a million dollars. Not saying that will happen to you! But at the VERY least you should be able to recoup any money you were forced to pay.
posted by peep at 9:33 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by peep at 9:33 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]
The idea is reasonable (imagine two people agreeing to each pay a mediator $100 is settle a dispute for them even though one person is right.) In practice, they're an easy way for courts to get revenue. They are often priced low enough that it's not worth getting a lawyer to fight them. However, in your case you should definitely pursue a civil suit that could be worth enough to make the fees irrelevant, as others have said.
posted by michaelh at 1:04 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by michaelh at 1:04 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Chicago story linked by randomkeystrike makes it clear that the fee involved there essentially substitutes for a 10% bail bond premium.
In some states, you cannot be released on bond unless you have the money to post the bond in its entirety, or a percentage, or you sign up with a bail bondsman who will post the bond for you in exchange for a premium, maybe 10%, maybe more, plus security agreements, second mortgages, etc. for higher bonds.
It appears that Chicago will accept your own promise to pay $1,000 (or whatever) as your bond, but charges the same 10% to cover the costs, including forfeited bonds.
Should the citizens of Chicago go back to the bail bondsman days? I don’t know.
Should the system refund the fee for those actually found not guilty? Makes sense. What about those for whom the prosecutor decides to dismiss? Maybe a little less clear.
posted by megatherium at 4:29 AM on December 16, 2014
In some states, you cannot be released on bond unless you have the money to post the bond in its entirety, or a percentage, or you sign up with a bail bondsman who will post the bond for you in exchange for a premium, maybe 10%, maybe more, plus security agreements, second mortgages, etc. for higher bonds.
It appears that Chicago will accept your own promise to pay $1,000 (or whatever) as your bond, but charges the same 10% to cover the costs, including forfeited bonds.
Should the citizens of Chicago go back to the bail bondsman days? I don’t know.
Should the system refund the fee for those actually found not guilty? Makes sense. What about those for whom the prosecutor decides to dismiss? Maybe a little less clear.
posted by megatherium at 4:29 AM on December 16, 2014
« Older Do I tell or do I let it go? | Ever seen this handout that helps you memorize the... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:56 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]