Ending the Fee-based Diversion Program in Maricopa County
Briggs et al. v. Montgomery et al.
In 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Inc. (TASC) for operating a diversion program that charges hundreds of dollars in fees to people accused of possessing small amounts of marijuana. The lawsuit alleged that they do this by threatening jail time, six-figure fines, and felony convictions if the participant does not pay, thereby trapping poor people in cycles of debt, and funding the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) and TASC on the backs of low-level marijuana offenders.
The lawsuit outlined how the diversion program was funded by fees charged to participants: 1) participants had to pay an additional $15-51 per week for random drug and alcohol screenings, which may be required as often as three times a week and 2) $650 of these fees went toward the budget of MCAO. Participants unable to afford their fees are treated differently by TASC and MCAO than their wealthy counterparts.
In 2024, the Court approved a landmark $2.6 million settlement:
- Each of the Named Plaintiffs will get a $40,000 service payment
- 150 class members are eligible for a settlement payment, with the median payment amount per class member being around $10,000 and the maximum payment amount around $26,000.
This case ended the practice in Phoenix of prosecuting people accused of marijuana possession only if they cannot pay fees to have their case dismissed, and it also sets precedent on the illegality of such fines and fees diversion schemes across the U.S. This litigation is also primarily responsible for putting TASC, the private company running the program, out of business.
Media Coverage:
Caught With Pot? Get-Out-of-Jail Program Comes with $950 Catch | New York Times | Aug 24, 2018
Maricopa County attorney sued over marijuana diversion program | AZ Central | Aug 24, 2018
Partners:
Covington & Burling LLP
Filings:
Settlement Agreement (April 6, 2023)
Second Amended Complaint (Sep 23, 2019)
More from the Ending the Criminalization of Poverty
In re Kowalczyk. In May 2026, the California Supreme Court issued one of the most liberatory decisions in U.S. history, unanimously holding that jailing a person pretrial simply because they can’t pay money bail is unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court also held that the vast majority of people accused of crimes must be released prior to trial under the California Constitution and reaffirmed rigorous procedural protections that the government must follow if it seeks to detain a presumed innocent person.
Since the landmark Humphrey ruling, our California habeas project has expanded: providing training and partnering, so far, with 17 county public defender and appointed defender offices spanning all 6 of California’s intermediate appellate districts and the California Supreme Court.
Sandoval v. Riverside. In May 2025, individuals detained in Riverside County jails filed a class action lawsuit challenging Riverside County’s cash-based jailing of individuals between their arrest and first court hearing, as well as Riverside County’s unnecessary delay of that hearing. Rabbi David Lazar and Reverend Jane Quandt chose to join this lawsuit because they view cash-based jailing as unconscionable. The lawsuit was filed against Riverside County Superior Court, Riverside County, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chad Bianco.
In partnership with public defenders in Oregon, Civil Rights Corps is challenging Oregon’s longstanding practices of jailing people charged with misdemeanors prior to trial and jailing people charged with other crimes without constitutionally required due process.
Butler v. Prince George's County. In 2022, CRC and partners filed a class action lawsuit challenging Prince George’s County's pretrial detention practices. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that PG County and its officials violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States and Maryland Constitutions by detaining people pretrial without meeting the substantive and procedural standards required for pretrial detention.
Urquidi v. City of Los Angeles. CRC and co-counsel brought suit in California Superior Court in November 2022 on behalf of several individuals who had been jailed for five days simply because they could not access enough cash to pay for their freedom.
Mays v. Dart. In 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit the U.S., many of us protected ourselves by isolating in our homes. For the millions of people trapped in jails and prisons across the country, this was not an option.
Caliste v. Cantrell. In 2017, Civil Rights Corps filed a landmark federal class action lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional money bail system in New Orleans, Louisiana.
McNeil v. Community Probation Services. In 2018, five named plaintiffs sued Giles County, TN and two private probation companies on behalf of a class of people who were being supervised on for-profit probation.