Ayo, et al. v. Dunn, et al. – Southern Poverty Law Center

People awaiting trial before a criminal court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were coerced into paying hundreds of dollars to a company before they were released from jail even after they had paid their bail. The SPLC filed a federal lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Louisiana to end the practice.

Even after they were released, people awaiting trial were threatened with re-arrest if they did not pay additional monthly fees to the company, Rehabilitation Home Incarceration, which provides pretrial supervision. The lawsuit describes how the company and its owner worked with East Baton Rouge Parish officials for at least three years to detain people awaiting trial and coerce payments. The company, its owner, Cleve Dunn Sr., and the parish are named as defendants.

In 2015 and 2016, more than 300 people were assigned to the company by 19th Judicial District Judge Trudy A. White. She often made these orders for indefinite periods of supervision without determining whether people were a flight risk or posed any danger. She did not assess their ability to pay the companys signup fee of $525 and its subsequent monthly fees and other charges.

One plaintiff, Kaiasha White (no relation to the judge), was forced to stay in jail for a month as she and her family struggled to pay both her bond and the companys signup fee. The jail would not release her until the company said its fee had been paid.

Henry Ayo, another plaintiff, was jailed for two months because he and his wife couldnt afford to pay his bond and the signup fee. After paying for his release, Ayo was informed by the company that he had to pay $225 a month while awaiting trial, or he could be arrested and jailed again. Ayo and his wife paid the company approximately $1,000. The only supervision he received was being required to make phone calls that often went unanswered.

View original post here:

Ayo, et al. v. Dunn, et al. – Southern Poverty Law Center

Related Post

August 8, 2017   Posted in: Southern Poverty Law Center |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."