A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s prison debt program. The court found that a recent change to Connecticut law which eliminated the debt of the individuals bringing the lawsuit rendered the case moot, leaving the larger question of whether the state’s practice of charging inmates for the costs of their incarceration is constitutional unanswered.
Plaintiffs Teresa Beatty, Douglas Johnson, and Natasha Tosado agreed that recent changes to state law affecting how the Department of Corrections (DOC) can recover incarceration costs mooted their case.
After an earlier version of the lawsuit brought against attorney general Attorney Tong was dismissed due to lack of standing, Beatty, Johnson, and Tosado brought several amended complaints against DOC Commissioner Angel Quiros and Department of Administrative Services Commissioner Michelle Gilman before the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, with the most recent filed in July.
The trio alleged that liens placed against their assets to recover costs associated with their incarcerations violated the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause.
Dating back to 1997, Connecticut law allows DOC to charge a daily rate for the cost of incarceration. It includes the costs of pretrial detention for those who are unable to afford bail. In addition, DOC can charge for services, like educational programs and healthcare visits.
Under the same law, any property an incarcerated individual owns, with the exception of property acquired after release or from work performed during incarceration, can be taken by the state to satisfy prison debt. This includes money obtained through a lawsuit, from an inheritance, through lottery winnings, or from a person’s estate upon their death. The state is able to seize either the full amount owed by the inmate or 50 percent of the proceeds, whichever is less.
In 2022, the legislature amended the law by exempting civil judgments won by formerly incarcerated people and the first $50,000 of their assets from seizure to pay prison debt.
Beatty, who was incarcerated on drug charges between 2002 and 2022, inherited 40 percent of her family’s home when her mother passed away in 2020. She stood to inherit $230,000 when the house was sold but owed the state $83,762 for the cost of her incarceration, including pretrial detention. DAS filed a notice in probate court seeking to recoup the debt, which was calculated at an amount above the actual assessed rates for the years Beatty was incarcerated.
Johnson was incarcerated between February 2002 and March 2004. When his mother passed away in 2016, the state took part of his inheritance to pay down his prison debt. When his father passed away in 2021, the state again attempted to take his inheritance from his father’s estate for his prison debt.
While Tosado was incarcerated between July 2016 and April 2018, her 15-year-old son was shot and killed by a Bridgeport police officer. After the estate administrator sued the city and a settlement was reached, DAS filed a lawsuit in probate court seeking to recoup her prison debt from the 50 percent of the settlement funds she was entitled to receive.
But the budget implementer bill, which became law at the end of May, included language that put some limitations on how DOC can recover incarceration costs. It prohibited the state from recouping incarceration costs incurred for a crime that is later erased from an individual’s criminal record. It also stipulated that formerly incarcerated individuals whose convictions were erased cannot be reimbursed if the state seized money from them prior to July 1, 2024, when the new law went into effect.
Second, the bill exempted up to $50,000 of an inheritance from a lien by the state to recover prison debt except for individuals charged with more serious offenses like capital murder or first or second degree sexual assault.
Last, the bill required that any property of a formerly incarcerated individual that the probate court deems an asset to recover prison debt must be used to pay the state’s claim against a formerly incarcerated individual’s estate if they die within 20 years of being released.
Following passage of the 2024 law, DAS has subsequently withdrawn its lien against all three defendants. Both Beatty and Tosado, who received a full pardon, filed notices of mootness in the case. Johnson had not filed a similar notice at the time the case was dismissed, but lawyers for the state argued this was likely because the withdrawal of the lien was more recent.
The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted in mid-October.
Inside Investigator spoke with ACLU Connecticut legal director Dan Barrett, who was also a lawyer for the plaintiffs, who said he was pleased with the result. He said a broader ruling finding prison debt unconstitutional will come someday, but not in this case “because the state decided to surrender to all three plaintiffs.”
“The state sent them letters saying they don’t owe any money anymore, which is a great result.” He said he also hopes the state takes the same position towards everyone who owes prison debt.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
