Seal of the 11th Circuit Court of Appea
On October 1, 2009, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a civil rights lawsuit against the Sheriff of Walton County, Florida. Sheriff Ralph L. Johnson was sued by Randy Campbell after the county jail refused to release Campbell on a property bond that has been approved by a judge.
Campbell was arrested on a felony charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and booked into the Walton County Jail. After Walton had been in jail for several months, Walton County Circuit Judge Kelvin C. Wells approved a property bond for Campbell based on property located in Okaloosa County, Florida.
Judge Wells went to the jail with Campbell's mother and sister, and personally advised the booking officer that he approved the property as security for Campbell's bond. The booking officer stated that they needed proof that the property was not homestead property, and the judge told the officer to accept the documents as soon as the property was verified as non-homestead. However, when Campbell's family went back to the jail with the verified documents, the jail administrator told them that Sheriff Johnson had directed the jail not to accept the real estate documents as security for Campbell's bail.
Campbell took various steps attempting to be released, such as filing an inmate grievance and later requesting the court to accept the Okaloosa property as security for Campbell's bond. In response, the trial judge stated that he had already approved the property documents but that it was up to the Sheriff's Department to process the documents. The judge also stated that the jail administrator had informed the court that Sheriff Johnson had directed the jail not to accept property outside of Walton County for the bond. Two officers are alleged to have told Campbell that the sheriff would not release Campbell on a bond based on Okaloosa County because if Campbell failed to appear in court, the sheriff would have to hire an attorney to take the property.
Campbell next wrote a letter to the Walton County Commission notifying them that Sheriff Johnson refused to process his court-appointed property bond, and shortly thereafter Sheriff Johnson sent a brief memorandum to a corrections officer at the jail to accept Campbell's property bond. Campbell's mother came the next morning to bond him out, but by that time Campbell had already been convicted on the DUI charges. He was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment in the Florida Department of Corrections.
Campbell filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Johnson under 42 USC Section 1983, alleging that the failure to accept his court-approved property bond resulted in Campbell's excessive detention and deprived him of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Campbell also claimed that Sheriff Johnson violated Campbell's Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail.
A magistrate judge found that there was “no evidence that Sheriff Johnson was personally involved in the alleged due process violation, or that there was a sufficient causal connection between his policies, actions, or omissions to support a basis for liability.” Based on that finding, the magistrate judge found that Sheriff Johnson did not have liability under Section 1983 for any due process violation.
The magistrate judge also ruled against Campbell on his Eighth Amendment allegation over excessive bail. The magistrate judge held that Sheriff Johnson's policy of requiring property to be located in Walton County was supported by the county's “valid interest in ensuring that bail bonds were sufficiently secured and that the cost of a forced sale would not exceed the value of the property.”
The district court adopted the recommendations of the magistrate judge and entered judgment against Campbell, and Campbell filed an appeal. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the district court and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The 11th Circuit held that the record demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sheriff Johnson personally participated in Campbell's alleged false imprisonment. The Court stated that “what Sheriff Johnson knew, and when he knew it, are unresolved issues of material fact.” Consequently, the district court erred in dismissing Campbell's Section 1983 claim.
The 11th Circuit also disagreed with the district court's review of Campbell's Eighth Amendment argument that he was subjected to excessive bail. Holding that the district court “employed an incorrect legal standard in assessing this claim,” the appellate court stated that “the test for excessiveness is whether the terms of release are designed to ensure a compelling interest of the government, and no more.” Finding that the requirement of in-county property to secure a bond was neither a minor nor a theoretical restriction, the appeals court held that Sheriff Johnson must articulate a compelling interest to justify that restriction. The Sheriff claimed that he did not want to incur the cost of hiring an attorney to force an out-of-county property sale if Campbell failed to appear, but no evidence was presented on the amount of legal fees which would be required or whether those fees would exceed the value of the Okaloosa property. There was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that the in-county property requirement was no greater than necessary to achieve the county's stated interest.
The summary judgment against Campbell was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The case has not yet been scheduled for trial as of the writing of this article.
Other recent articles:
Comments