The city of Maplewood has lost an appeal to dismiss a lawsuit against the city, it was announced on Friday. ArchCity Defenders brought suit against the city, claiming Maplewood’s court system has a “pay to play” cash bail system.
The group contends the city’s court jails defendants accused of traffic or vehicle violations based on their ability to pay bail — pay or go to jail. ArchCity Defenders is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing legal counsel to the homeless and the poor.
Maplewood’s attorneys argued in 2017 that the city’s municipal court is technically an arm of the state of the Missouri; that state that should be sued and not the city. Also that Maplewood has “sovereign immunity.”
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the city of Maplewood enjoys no sovereign immunity against claims that its handling of traffic and vehicle violations is unconstitutional. Those claims had been filed in the Eastern District of Missouri in November 2016 by six motorists aided by ArchCity Defenders.
ArchCity Defenders released this information on Friday:
In a major decision impacting multiple cases in the region, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Maplewood’s “sovereign immunity” defense in Webb, et al. v Maplewood, ruling that Maplewood can be held liable for their actions.
“While this brings us one step closer to securing justice for our clients, we know that the people we represent have been waiting years for municipalities like Maplewood to answer for the harm they have caused,” said Blake Strode, Executive Director of ArchCity Defenders. “Too many municipalities continue to spend time, energy, and resources trying to evade responsibility for their unlawful practices. It’s time to stop looking for ways out and start making whole the people they have victimized.”
Maplewood had claimed “sovereign immunity,” arguing that the city could not be sued for the actions that harmed Ms. Webb and thousands of people like her, who are part of the pending class action lawsuit. Now Ms. Webb’s claims–along with those of the other named plaintiffs, Darron Yates, Robert Eutz, Anthony Lemicy, Krystal Banks, and Frank Williams–can move forward. This ruling is also significant for the plaintiffs awaiting justice in ArchCity Defenders’ debtors’ prison claims against cities like Ferguson, Florissant, Arnold, and St. Ann.
In 2016, ArchCity Defenders filed Webb with co-counsel at Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, D.C. Gupta Wessler, LLP joined the case when Maplewood filed an appeal in 2017. Last month, the Eighth Circuit heard oral arguments from both sides in the case.
ArchCity Defenders has filed over 37 civil rights lawsuits since 2014. As a result of this litigation, municipalities throughout the region have curbed unlawful and predatory practices, leading to decreases in court revenues, and securing over $7.4M in monetary payments to thousands of people across the region.
A link to the ruling can be found here.
This case has nothing to do with tickets. It stems from a misreading of the nuisance ordinance. Arch City needs to train their fire on more glaring problems. This case smells like a means to raise their profile. What a waste of precious resources on both sides.
Maybe, the only people that should have to pay for tickets are the people who have money. Oh, you can’t pay afford your ticket, then here is your get out of jail free card. Let’s not have any kind of deterrence for breaking the law.
I t’s important to realize how tickets are a financial burden for people with little money and not for people with more money. This means wealthy people can be careless drivers because they know the ticket won’t place undue burden on them. And when racial profiling is also an aspect of how police decide who to ticket, now there is an added burden on people of color.
I’ve never had a traffic or parking ticket in Maplewood, but the city of St. Louis tries to grab money however they can. I contested a $25 parking ticket in the city for parking on a parking lot that they said was “undeveloped land” and when I got a response in all capitol letters, I paid the ticket (realizing they don’t understand logic) but after that I refused to do business with businesses within the city of St. Louis.
So Michelle, a “person of color” can’t afford tickets? Why is it only a “person of color” that you consider poor? I can’t afford a ticket, so I make sure that my car is safe to drive and I don’t speed or run stop lights. And, I guess you are the expert on how our police department racially profiles the people they give tickets to. I could also argue that more woman get out of tickets than men because woman start crying when they get pulled over.
It would help you to go back and reread what I said. To make it a little more clear, I meant when racial profiling is added to policing, more people of color are ticketed. That means it is more likely a person with less money who is also a person of color will be ticketed than a white person with less money. Also, when a person has less money it is more difficult to make sure your car is safe to drive. I don’t presume to be an expert on police, but I do pay attention when experts study the police and the way they treat people of color. I believe it is possible white women are able to get out of tickets more often, not because they cry, but because they are white women. But from what I have read and what I have heard anecdotally from friends, the same is not true for women or color.
* I’m sorry, that last sentence should say “women of color” not “or color.”
https://theatln.tc/2rMHkZx
You don’t have to be considered “poor” for a ticket to be a burden on you. Everyday working people who struggle to make ends meet, keep their vehicles legal and try to obey traffic laws have the same burden when an extra unexpected expense happens…no matter what that extra expense may be. If you break the traffic laws and are caught, you get a ticket. A ticket is meant to be burdensome to try to deter offenders from continuing to break the law.
Comments are closed.