823 F.3d 918
8th Cir.2016Background
- Ramsey County policy: upon booking, officers confiscate an arrestee’s cash, automatically deduct a $25 statutorily authorized booking fee, and return remaining funds on a prepaid debit card that carries potential fees.
- Refund policy: county will refund the $25 if charges are never filed, are dismissed, or result in acquittal; an inmate must submit a "Booking Fee Refund Form" to obtain reimbursement.
- Plaintiffs Erik Mickelson and Corey Statham were arrested, had cash seized, received debit cards reflecting cash minus $25, and incurred additional card fees; Statham’s charges were dismissed but he did not allege he submitted a refund form.
- Plaintiffs sued Ramsey County and private vendors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural and substantive due process and conspiracy), and state-law conversion and theft claims; district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on due process grounds.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenged only the Fourteenth Amendment due process rulings: (1) that immediate deduction of the booking fee without a predeprivation hearing violated procedural due process; and (2) that converting cash to prepaid cards with fees violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taking $25 booking fee at booking without a pre-deprivation hearing violates procedural due process | County must provide a pre-conviction hearing before collecting the fee; post-deprivation remedy is insufficient | Statutory fee collection is permissible at booking; county has strong interest in upfront collection and provides an adequate post-deprivation refund process | No violation; pre-deprivation hearing not required where modest private interest, substantial governmental interest, and available post-deprivation refund exist |
| Whether the risk of erroneous deprivation requires pre-deprivation process | Upfront collection causes erroneous, irreversible deprivation for some arrestees | Probable-cause-based arrest plus refund form and grievance procedures limit risk of erroneous deprivation | No; Mathews balancing favors county and post-deprivation remedy suffices absent factual allegations showing the remedy is inadequate |
| Whether converting seized cash to a prepaid debit card with fees violates procedural due process | Cards impose fees and are not fungible cash — constitutes meaningful deprivation | Cards make funds usable on release, fees are avoidable/minimal, so no constitutionally protected deprivation | No violation; plaintiffs’ interest in cash vs. card is de minimis and does not trigger due process |
| Whether plaintiffs preserved a substantive due process challenge to the debit-card scheme | (Argued on appeal) substantive due process is implicated by the fee-laden card scheme | Plaintiffs disavowed substantive due process below; claim abandoned | Not reached — plaintiffs waived/abandoned substantive due process argument by conceding it at district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (benefit‑balancing test for procedural due process)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process question and what process is due)
- Sickles v. Campbell County, 501 F.3d 726 (6th Cir.) (upholding upfront booking fee with post‑deprivation refund)
- Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge, 760 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. en banc) (noting serious constitutional concern where no post‑deprivation remedy exists)
- Walters v. Wolf, 660 F.3d 307 (8th Cir.) (post‑deprivation tort remedy may be insufficient where administrative review is absent)
- Calero‑Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (post‑deprivation process may be adequate when government has strong interest in preserving property)
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (postponement of judicial inquiry permissible where ultimate judicial determination is available)
- Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161 (tax collection context: prepayment hearings not required when government interest in collection is strong)