close
close

Judge dismisses lawsuit over lack of contact visits in prison

play

A St. Clair County judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the county alleging that the sheriff's department colluded with a telecommunications company to force jail inmates to allow family visits via costly video conferencing and phone calls by banning in-person visits.

District Judge Michael West dismissed the lawsuit against the county, Sheriff Mat King, the county jail's telecommunications company and other parties, ruling that “no constitutional rights, fundamental or otherwise, are at stake in this case.”

Meanwhile, a Genesee County district judge has yet to rule on a similar lawsuit in that county, where Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson announced in June the reinstatement of in-person visits at the county jail.

“The judge in St. Clair County has ruled that children and parents have no constitutional right to visit each other. We intend to appeal this cruel decision because we believe it is simply wrong,” Cody Cutting, an attorney with the Civil Rights Corps in Washington, D.C., one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs in the cases, wrote in an email to the Free Press.

Cutting said the plaintiffs intend to appeal the St. Clair County decision but had not done so as of Friday.

The crux of the lawsuits, which the Free Press reported in March, is that plaintiffs alleged the defendants conspired to prohibit in-person contact with family as part of a scheme to make money for the counties and businesses, which the plaintiffs say violates Michigan law. They claimed that St. Clair County allowed in-person visits until 2017 and Genesee County allowed them until 2014.

The lawsuits sought class action status for all individuals whose parent or child was incarcerated in jails in St. Clair and Genesee counties at any time since March 15, 2021.

The St. Clair County lawsuit names the county, Sheriff King, Securus Technologies LLC and Platinum Equity LLC, a private equity firm that purchased Securus, whose chairman and CEO is Detroit Pistons owner Tom Gores. Gores is also named in the lawsuit, along with Mark Barnhill, a partner at Platinum Equity, and David Abel, president and CEO of Securus and Aventiv Technologies, Securus' parent company.

It alleged that Securus paid St. Clair County 50% of the $12.99 price of each 20-minute video call and 78% of the 21 cents per minute cost of each phone call. The lawsuit says the contract promised the county a revenue stream as well as a guaranteed minimum payment of $190,000 per year, to be paid up front. The 21 cents per phone call is the maximum allowed by law, the lawsuit says.

It is alleged that Securus paid the county $154,130 in phone commissions in 2017, and the following year, with the addition of the new guaranteed payment, revenue from video calls, and the elimination of in-person visits, that amount nearly tripled to $404,752. These increases have continued steadily, reaching nearly $500,000 in 2022.”

Attorney Richmond Moore released a statement on Saturday on behalf of Platinum Equity LLC.

“While the lawsuit in this case is without merit, Platinum fully supports efforts to reform business practices in the corrections industry and has invested heavily in more affordable and accessible connections through its investments in Securus and its parent company Aventiv,” it said. “Platinum believes that the company's phone and video products provide an important connection between inmates and their friends and families, but these products are not intended to be a substitute for in-person visits.”

Securus Technologies responded in a statement that the company “creates connections and is committed to bridging the digital divide in correctional facilities, ensuring inmates stay in touch with their loved ones while providing law enforcement with the tools to fulfill their commitment to public safety.”

“The court's dismissal of the lawsuit against us in Michigan confirms that it was without merit. Our focus remains – creating meaningful and positive outcomes for the consumers we serve,” Securus said in its response. “We will continue to tailor our services to the needs of each correctional facility, offering phone and video call services, text connections, and access to education, training, and reintegration support to promote better outcomes for families and communities when incarcerated individuals return home.”

Todd Shoudy, an attorney representing St. Clair County and King, wrote in an email Friday: “The claim that inmates or their families have a constitutional right to contact visits has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court and Michigan state courts for the past 30 to 40 years, and the district judge's decision was an obvious one given that precedent. The plaintiffs' arguments in this case are actually aimed at changes in the law that are better directed at the legislature.”

Shoudy said it was “ironic” that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit this year, “at a time when the St. Clair County Jail, through the use of modern technology, offers more means of communication for inmates and friends and family outside of the jail than ever before.”

“Today, inmates can not only communicate with those outside the prison through traditional means such as letters and phone calls, but they are also given an electronic tablet upon arrival at the prison,” Shoudy wrote. “Inmates can use this tablet to communicate with prison guards and medical staff, as well as access prison policies and the law library and borrow movies and music. These same tablets also allow inmates and those outside the prison to communicate via text message and email. Inmates can also receive photos and videos of their family members and store them on their tablet.”

Shoudy wrote that video visits “actually provide an easier and more reliable way to conduct free on-site visits than the old system of visits previously conducted through a glass partition.”

Under the old system, he explained, visits were limited to one per week, supervised by a prison visitation officer, and many were canceled because a visitor didn't show up or was late. Under the new system, Shoudy wrote, the number of missed visits has dropped dramatically.

The technology allows for “an unlimited number of remote visits, for a fee, that visitors can conduct literally from anywhere,” he wrote, adding that inmates could remotely attend birthday parties or visit their loved ones in the hospital.

Shoudy wrote that the new technology also “increases inmate safety by limiting the flow of contraband into the prison at a time when the threat of deadly fentanyl is greater than ever.”

The lawsuits alleged that the ban on face-to-face contact meant that parents and children could not hug or look each other in the eye and that phone and video calls were expensive and of poor quality.

District court judges in St. Clair and Genesee counties had previously heard plaintiffs' arguments for preliminary injunctions and defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuits.

“In this Court's view, no constitutional rights, fundamental or otherwise, are involved in this case. There is no right of liberty or family integrity under the Constitution of the State of Michigan to meet in a penal institution,” Judge West wrote in a July 19 opinion, adding, “Even if such a right did exist, and plaintiffs have alleged it, this Court concludes that there has been no violation of plaintiffs' alleged constitutional rights because the prison policy is reasonably related to legitimate penal interests.”

The Genesee County District Judge had not issued a statement on the case as of Friday. A hearing on the case is scheduled for October 7.

In Genesee County, Swanson announced that the jail would allow in-person visits again in July, starting with inmates and their children ages 12 and younger, and then expanding to older children and adults. He also announced that he would try to reduce the cost of phone calls and video visits.

Swanson said in June that phone revenue would be $15,000 a month, or $180,000 a year, making it a fixed revenue, while video visits, he said, would be around $400,000, including a technical subsidy.

Swanson had previously said the prison had allowed in-person visits through various programs, but years ago “in-person visits ended and video visits became the new norm.” He said “family connection and family reunification are vital” and the lawsuit caught his attention to move forward more quickly.

Swanson said video visits would remain available because they are a good complement for people who are homebound, out of state or have transportation issues to be able to visit their loved ones in prison.

Contact Christina Hall: [email protected]. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @challreporter.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to the Free Press.

Send a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters.

You may also like...