Challenging the Money Bail System in Alamance County
Guill v. Allen (previously Allison et al. v. Allen)
In November 2019, CRC filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of three people locked in jail cells in Alamance County, North Carolina only because they are too poor to purchase their freedom. Their case challenged the unconstitutional money bail system in Alamance County that trapped poor people in jail because they couldn’t pay money bail, all while letting others charged with the same offense pay for their release.
At the time our case was filed, the conditions in Alamance County were especially egregious. Out of 100 counties in North Carolina, Alamance County had the second highest percentage of people charged with misdemeanors who had to pay money bail to be released–over 85%. Over the past 30 years, the Alamance County jail population had grown 1,425 percent — or more than 14 times – driven largely by the number of people detained in jail pretrial. Black residents in Alamance County were incarcerated at a rate nearly four times higher than the rate for white residents. Alamance County judges required money bail for pretrial release in 88 percent of all release orders
Shortly after the filing of the lawsuit, the parties entered into negotiations that resulted in an overhaul of Alamance County’s bond practices and issuance of two new policies addressing most of the issues raised in the lawsuit.
In May, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Tilley, Jr. issued a consent preliminary injunction requiring the judicial defendants to put in place certain policies to protect individual’s constitutional rights and ordering the sheriff to release individuals who do not receive the required process. The preliminary injunction requires: a hearing within 48 hours or the next available court session; notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; a rebuttable presumption that a person is unable to pay any secured bond amount that exceeds 2 percent of that person’s monthly income; rebuttable presumptions of inability to pay any amount if the person meets certain criteria; a requirement that a secured financial condition of release can be imposed only upon a finding that the person can afford to pay or that clear and convincing evidence shows that no alternative conditions of release are adequate to reasonably assure the government’s interests; written findings setting forth the reasons for the decision; and provision of counsel free of charge.
In May, 2024, following several years of monitoring the consent preliminary injunction, the creation of a Public Defender’s Office in Alamance County, and a ruling by Judge Thomas D. Schroeder that the defendants had permanently discontinued their prior bail practices, the parties jointly dismissed the case.
Media Coverage:
ACLU brings lawsuit over pre-trial detention in Alamance County | NC Newsline | Nov 12, 2019
Partners:
ACLU of North Carolina
Filings:
Complaint (November 11, 2019)
More from the Bail
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.
Walker v. City of Calhoun. In 2015, Civil Rights Corps and the Southern Center for Human Rights filed a crucial lawsuit that alleged that the money bail system in Calhoun, Georgia was unconstitutional.
Edwards v. Cofield. In 2017, Civil Rights Corps and partners filed a putative class-action lawsuit alleging that the money bail system in Randolph County, Alabama, violated the constitutional rights of people charged with misdemeanors or felonies because it created a “two-tiered” system of justice based on wealth.
Robinson v. Martin. Civil Rights Corps filed a historic challenge to the unconstitutional money bail system in Cook County, Illinois. Our 2016 lawsuit alleged that the money bail system that pervaded the Chicago region, in which people are kept in jail cells solely because they cannot make monetary payments, is unconstitutional.
Fant v. City of Ferguson. In 2015, we filed a landmark challenge to the City of Ferguson’s conversion of its legal system into a mechanism for generating revenue. The lawsuit sought justice for thousands of people who alleged that Ferguson routinely violated their constitutional rights by jailing them in deplorable conditions and without the necessary legal process because they could not pay money to the City.
Hester v. Gentry. In 2018, Civil Rights Corps and partners filed a lawsuit alleging that hundreds of people in Cullman County, Alabama, are routinely jailed before trial due to their inability to pay bail in exchange for their release.