The Iowa Supreme Court is considering whether defendants must pay the state for court-appointed lawyers.

The Iowa Supreme Court is again being asked to consider whether state courts can charge poor defendants for court-appointed lawyers even if they are acquitted or have charges dropped.

If the court accepts the case for consideration, Iowa State vs. Ronald PagliaiIt will be the second time in recent years that Iowa’s highest court has ruled on the state’s unusually aggressive practice of billing poor defendants for court-appointed attorneys. Several civil liberties groups — the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa and Public Justice — filed the lawsuit amicus brief in that case earlier this month, arguing that the state fee scheme is unconstitutional and violates the presumption of innocence by imposing sanctions on unconvicted defendants.

“Courts cannot maintain a fair justice system if they fund it at the expense of the most vulnerable people who come before them,” Lisa Foster, Co-Executive Director, FFJC said in a press release. “Further expanding this miscarriage of justice by applying it even if the case is dismissed sends a clear message that profits are put before people.”

Everyone knows the right to an attorney part of the Miranda rights story, but few know that an attorney guaranteed by the Constitution is not necessarily free.

As of 2022 report According to the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), 42 states and the District of Columbia allow courts to charge fees for public defender systems. However, civil liberties groups and investigative news reports say Iowa is extreme in terms of the amount of fees and the fact that it bills defendants whose charges have been dropped.

In February Project Marshallnon-profit news outlet covering the criminal justice system, reported about how the Iowa court system saddled indigent defendants with debts to court-appointed lawyers, even in cases where they were acquitted.

In 2015, Laurie Mathes, one of the main characters Marshall Project”s Story, was charged with a felony drug crime after police found two grams of marijuana in her home. Unable to afford a lawyer, she obtained a court-appointed lawyer. Two years later, prosecutors struck a deal with Mats to drop her case in exchange for her agreeing to pay court fines and fees. Mats was shocked to receive a bill for $3,000 in Indigent Defense Fund (IDFR) reimbursement.

Mats appealed her charges to the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled 3-3 in 2020, leaving lower court rulings upholding her charges intact.

IN Iowa State vs. Ronald PagliaiPagliai was assessed $489 in IDFR costs on two charges related to the alleged shoplifting, although the charges were dropped.

Marshall Project’An analysis of Iowa court data found that between 2012 and 2022, the state billed indigent defendants totaling $30 million who were acquitted or had charges dropped.

Iowa does not require courts to consider whether defendants can afford the costs of IDFR, which is by definition unlikely. As a result, the system not only saddles poor defendants with debt, but the government rarely collects those debts. The NLADA report states that “no more than 3.2 percent of the estimated value of attorneys’ fees has been collected annually in recent years.”

However, the system has its defenders.

“I think the goal of this is just to hold them accountable,” said Iowa Rep. Brian Lohse, a Republican who chairs the Justice Appropriations Subcommittee. Project Marshall. “So they just don’t see it as some kind of gift.”

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel in a landmark 1963 Supreme Court case. Gideon vs Wainwright. It is as much a “gift” as the First Amendment right to criticize the government without facing retribution.

However, public defender systems across the country underfunded and overworkedand in many cases simply do not have the resources to provide their clients with competent representation.

Rita Bettis Austin, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa, said in a statement. press release that “it is fundamentally unfair to charge anyone who exercises their constitutional right to free counsel.”

“By definition, these are circumstances where the state has already determined that someone is indigent and cannot afford to hire their own lawyer,” Austin continued. “It’s even worse when the state charges someone for these expenses and the charges end up being dropped. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty according to the law.”

The Iowa Supreme Court will now decide whether to let the case stand or send it to a lower appeals court.