Constitutional Law — due process

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Constitutional Law — due process

It does not violate due process for a municipality to charge all persons who are arrested a $30 booking fee. “ Simply put, Woodridge’s general interest in covering booking costs of the arrestees in its custody, and specifically in offsetting the costs of holding Mr. Markadonatos temporarily, outweighs Mr. Markadonatos’ own interest in his money, especially when balanced with the exceedingly low likelihood that the fee would be imposed on him or other arrestees erroneously. There is some minimal amount of protection for ordinary citizens, insofar as they may argue to an arresting officer or later to a judge that the fee should not be charged against them or should be returned. That protection is more than sufficient to safeguard against the exceedingly low risk that a person who is not arrested will have the booking fee taken from him. This is fully consistent with the opinions of other circuits, which have determined that routine accounting and deduction of fees from detainees is not constitutionally problematic, due to the low amount of discretion and minimal risk of error. See, e.g., Sickles v. Campbell Cty., 501 F.3d 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2007); Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 253–54 (4th Cir. 2005); Tillman v. Lebanon Cty. Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 422 (3d Cir. 2000).”

Affirmed.

12-2619 Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Holderman, J., Stadtmueller, J.