New ACLU Report Finds Debt-Based Driver’s License Suspension Laws Impose Harm and Waste Resources
In the tragic killing of Daunte Wright, police claimed they stopped him because when they ran his plates, they found he had unpaid fines and fees. Fines and fees are part of a nationwide problem where state and local governments rely on law enforcement for revenue generation. When policymakers allow counties and states to rely on fines and fees to fund essential services, they perversely incentivize the over-criminalization and over-policing of innocuous conduct. More laws fining minor offenses create more opportunities to issue money-making tickets and, consequently, provide more excuses for police to engage in race-based surveillance under the guise of the law.
Wright’s death is just the most recent example of the devastating harm caused by employing law enforcement officers as debt collectors. Every year, there are 30 million cases related to minor infractions punishable by fines and fees — many of which give cops an excuse to make pretextual traffic stops. Our new report, “Reckless Lawmaking,” proposes a simple fix to stop over-policing and decrease income inequality: end debt-based license suspension.
In our study, we reviewed the state policy landscape and conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 people who had unpaid fines and suspended licenses. Each interview proved that debt-based suspensions make it nearly impossible for drivers to pay off their debts.
Suspensions are counterproductive to improving collection outcomes. If a driver can’t afford a parking ticket, they also can’t afford the late fee for the missed payment. Take Dario, one of our interviewees, who was pulled over by the police for “tinted windows.” When he couldn’t afford to pay the initial ticket of $225, he got slapped with an extra $807 in fees, for a grand total of $1,032. Neither the police nor the court cared that Dario couldn’t afford the charges and his license was suspended pending repayment. But because he worked 35 miles from his home, the suspension cut his income in half.
“Since I couldn’t drive to work, I lost my job,” Dario explained — a story that repeated itself across multiple interviews.
A $225 fine becomes a $1,032 debt when additional fees are added. (represents Dario's debts).
Suspending Dario’s license for tinted windows keeps nobody safer, but the policy behind the suspension endangers many people. When policymakers rely on predatory fines and fees to fund government services, they not only impoverish drivers, they also incentivize unnecessary encounters with the criminal legal system and waste city resources. Our interviewees faced required court appearances, compounding criminal charges, and even jail time for failure to pay. For example, our interviewee Jessica from Florida had her license suspended when she could no longer afford her car insurance premium. When she missed a court date, she was arrested for failure to appear.
“When I got to court, I almost had a nervous breakdown,” relayed our respondent Rosie from Colorado. “I thought, ‘This is just one ticket.’ Then I saw I was facing actual criminal charges. I couldn’t breathe.”
Police enforcement of fines and fees also increases contact between drivers and police. Because cops can identify unpaid fines and fees with license plate readers, police enforcement of missed payments justifies pretextual police stops. At best, these stops result in additional fines for drivers struggling to pay original fines. At worst, these encounters escalate to violence or death. Just last week, an unpaid fine gave former officer Kim Potter a pretext to stop Daunte Wright. The stop ended with Potter fatally shooting Wright.
Even when pretextual policing doesn’t result in death or police brutality, it still has devastating mental and emotional health consequences for impacted individuals. “When I got to court, I almost had a nervous breakdown,” relayed our respondent Rosie from Colorado. “I thought, ‘This is just one ticket.’ Then I saw I was facing actual criminal charges. I couldn’t breathe.” Another respondent, Katy, shared, “I had my small child with me at the time. It was very traumatic. The cop was very aggressive and threatening.”
Our report gives policymakers multiple recommendations:
- Driver’s license suspension should not be used as a penalty for failure to pay or failure to appear, regardless of the underlying offense: States should make it easier, not more difficult, for people to comply with payment by instituting reasonable payment plans, retroactively reinstating suspended licenses, and waiving reinstatement fees.
- All fees should be eliminated: The government should end fiduciary reliance on fines and remove perverse incentives for law enforcement to criminalize drivers based on income level.
- Existing prescribed dollar amounts for fines should be replaced with income-based measurements: For example, payments could be based on one day’s pay or 1 percent of monthly income.
- Lawmakers and court administrators should provide robust, timely notice of payment and court obligations: Information about payment and license reinstatement should be easily accessible.
- States should collect demographic data for debt-based driver’s license suspensions: Given the racial and economic disparities throughout the criminal legal system, states should routinely collect demographic data in all cases where fines and fees are imposed and collected.
- States should regularly collect relevant data needed to assess the fiscal impact of fine and fee related license suspensions: Fiscal notes related to license suspensions should consider the scope of the impact, the cost of enforcement, and collateral costs to drivers from job loss, eviction, and economic mobility.
Our legal system should benefit the people it serves. Taking away driver’s licenses from people struggling to pay their debts is bad public policy, plain and simple. We need policies that reflect the economic reality of Americans surviving a pandemic, recession, and gilded-era wealth inequality. It’s common sense: Debt-based license suspensions are bad public policy.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.