A judge’s decision may force Pierce County to refund more than $630,000 – and pay interest and attorney fees – to thousands of inmates who were charged a fee when booked into the Pierce County Jail during a two-year period earlier this decade.

In an order signed Sept. 11, King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick ruled that the way Pierce County collected the so-called “booking fee” violated the inmates’ 14th Amendment right to due process by:

 • Assessing the fee without affording inmates a hearing ahead of time.

 • In some cases, forcing former inmates to petition the county for reimbursement of their money when it was the county’s duty to refund their cash without being asked.

Erlick did not address the constitutionality of the state law itself, just the way Pierce County implemented it.

His ruling – which the county intends to fight – sets the stage for a trial to determine how much money the county would be required to pay the inmates. That trial is set to begin Dec. 7, but a postponement is anticipated.

County Council Chairman Roger Bush said refunding the money, if necessary, would be a financial hit to the county, which is already suffering budget woes.

But, Bush added, the county has plans in place to deal with unforeseen expenses and would “make the adjustments necessary” if and when it is ordered to pay refunds.

“Things sometimes blow up, and you just have to deal with it,” he said.

THOUSANDS OF REFUNDS?

University Place attorney Patrick Palace, who along with attorney Breean Beggs brought a class action on behalf of the inmates, said during a recent interview that 15,162 people could have money coming as a result of the ruling.

Jailers collected $634,525.54 from the inmates when the fee was in effect between Nov. 1, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005, said Palace, citing information the county provided him during the legal process. The county stopped collecting the fee in November 2005.

“This ruling is an important victory for everyone because the judge’s decision makes clear that Pierce County government officials are not above the law, that they cannot take shortcuts with the law and they cannot financially profit from breaking the law,” Palace said last week.

Deputy prosecutor Grace Kingman, who is handling the case for Pierce County, said the county plans to ask Erlick to reconsider his ruling and probably will appeal if the judge doesn’t reverse himself.

Kingman said the county followed state law when it imposed the fee as a way to help defray costs of booking people into the jail.

“The county acted in good faith,” she said last week. “It wasn’t something the county just did willy-nilly on its own.”

Furthermore, Kingman said, the county contends that one plaintiff joined the lawsuit after the statute of limitations on doing so had run out. That man represents the vast majority of the inmates affected by Erlick’s ruling – people booked into the jail and ultimately convicted of a crime.

LAW ALLOWS FEES

State law allows counties to collect a booking fee.

In 1999, the Legislature passed a law allowing city, county and regional jails to take a $10 fee from everyone booked into jail. In May 2003, state lawmakers amended the law to allow jailers to collect up to $100.

Those who eventually were never charged, were acquitted or had the charges against them dismissed were entitled to a refund, the law states.

In enacting the law, legislators hoped to shift some of the burden of housing people in local jails from taxpayers to the inmates. Pierce County officials estimate it costs about $180 to book an inmate into the jail.

Pierce County began collecting the $100 fee in November 2003.

The county’s policy was to take the fee in cash from anyone booked into the jail at the time of his or her intake. Jailers seized whatever money an inmate had at the time of booking and deposited it into the county’s coffers.

They assessed a charge against an inmate’s jail account if he or she did not have enough to cover the booking fee at intake.

Inmates were required to sign forms acknowledging assessment of the fee and were told of the procedure for receiving a refund if they qualified for one, according to court documents.

“Many of these people had less than $10 taken from them,” Kingman said.

SPOKANE CASE

Pierce County stopped taking the fee two years later after a man sued Spokane County, contending a similar fee collected at the jail there violated his constitutional rights.

“We agreed as part of good faith that … we would cease the collection of any booking fees while we looked at alternative processes,” Craig Adams, a deputy prosecutor who advises Pierce County Jail officials, told The News Tribune in an e-mail last week.

The Spokane County case settled out of court in June of this year after a federal judge ruled that the booking fee violated the rights of inmates there.

Spokane County commissioners agreed to pay more than $491,000 to inmates, their lawyers and programs benefitting jail inmates as part of the settlement, according to a memorandum of understanding reached by the two parties. In October 2006, former jail inmate Jeffery Gunderson challenged Pierce County’s procedures.

Palace sued the county on Gunderson’s behalf in King County Superior Court, alleging collecting the fee deprived his client of his property without due process.

Gunderson was booked on a domestic violence charge in May 2005. Jailers took $100 cash from his wallet to cover the booking fee.

The charges against Gunderson later were dropped, and he contended in his lawsuit that the county never refunded him his $100 as required by state law.

A man named Robert Bantolino was added as a plaintiff in April of this year. Bantolino represents the class of inmates assessed the fee and later convicted of crimes.

Kingman challenged the addition of Bantolino, saying he’d missed his opportunity to join the suit, but Erlick ruled against her.

Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644

adam.lynn@thenewstribune.com

blog.thenewstribune.com/crime