Challenging probation detainer practices in Allegheny County
Horton et. al. v. Rangos et. al.
In October 2022, Civil Rights Corps and the Abolitionist Law Center filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals detained at Allegheny County Jail against three Allegheny County judges, as well as other county, jail, and probation department officials.
The suit alleges that Allegheny County’s pervasive jailing of people on probation before their revocation hearing—without any individualized determination of whether jailing them would serve a government interest—violates their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants’ policies and practices violate their rights to due process under the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to change the practices they allege result in rampant illegal incarceration and money damages for every day of allegedly illegal detention that they have endured.
The lawsuit alleges that on any given day, about one third of the local jail population in Pittsburgh has a probation detainer lodged against them: about 600 people at the time of filing. Many of them are accused only of a technical violation of probation, such as failing to update their address or to meet with their probation officer. Most of the people accused of violating as a result of new charges are theoretically able to be released on either monetary or non-monetary bail, but are kept incarcerated due to the probation detainer.
The suit challenges the constitutionality of the perfunctory proceedings at which decisions regarding detainers are made and at least one judges ’ blanket administrative “no-lift” policies, automatically requiring all people they supervise who are arrested for an alleged probation violation to remain in jail, no matter the circumstances of the probation violation.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. A motion for preliminary injunction was filed on October 3, 2022, and heard April 18, 2023. The motion was denied on December 22, 2023. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals shortly thereafter. The ACLU and Columbia University’s Justice Lab filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs. The case was argued before the Third Circuit on February 19, 2025.
In May 2025, the Third Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss our case because our lawsuit raises fundamental concerns about basic due process in probation proceedings, thereby allowing the case to move forward. However, the majority rejected our argument that probationers are entitled to a finding that their detention is necessary before they can be detained pending a final revocation hearing and held that a mere finding of probable cause is sufficient. The court’s decision that the government can jail people without any showing that it serves any legitimate purpose is a novel ruling that appears to break with other federal courts, and we intend to seek certiorari in the United States Supreme Court to vindicate the foundational liberty interests that our constitution guarantees to all human beings to be free from unjustified government confinement. On June 4, 2025, we requested a stay of proceedings in the lower court in order to resolve the important issues in the Supreme Court. The stay was granted on June 5th.
Media Coverage:
3rd Circ. Hints County's Probation Detainers Need Scrutiny | Law360 | Feb 19, 2025
How a Probation Violation Turns Into Indefinite Jail Time | The Nation | Sep 9, 2024
Lawsuit filed over probation detainers at Allegheny County Jail | CBS News | Oct 5, 2022
Partners:
Filings:
The Probation and Parole Project of The Justice Lab Amicus Brief (July 5, 2024)
ACLU Amicus Brief (July 3, 2024)
Third Circuit Appeal Opening Brief (June 28, 2024)
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dec 22, 2023)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Oct 3, 2022)
Complaint (Oct 2, 2022)
More from the Accountability
Holland v. Otero. On January 29, 2025, Civil Rights Corps filed a lawsuit against 6 Houston Police Department officers on behalf of Houston resident Terrence Holland. Mr. Holland has multiple physical, cognitive, and psychological disabilities, including PTSD, hearing impairments, and a traumatic brain injury. The complaint alleges that defendant HPD officers used overwhelming and excessive force on Mr. Holland when they repeatedly hit, kicked, punched, and tased him during a minor traffic stop.
Civil Rights Corps v. LaSalle. In response to the filing of the first Accountability NY complaints in 2021, NYC Corporate Counsel sent a letter to the Grievance Committees claiming that the professors had engaged in “misuse and indeed abuse of the grievance process" that "should not be countenanced.” In November 2021, we filed a federal lawsuit and won a big victory for transparency in June 2022, when the court granted our motion for partial summary judgment.
Civil Rights Corps worked with an amazing group of organizers at Silicon Valley De-Bug and law professor Lara Bazelon on an ethics complaint alleging judicial misconduct in San Mateo County, California. The complaint, citing court transcripts, court watchers’ observations, and local and statewide reports, was filed in August 2024, alleging that multiple judges and judicial […]
Rise v. Bagshaw. In 2024, Civil Rights Corps filed a landmark lawsuit challenging alleged police brutality in Washington, DC, against the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the United States Capitol Police (USCP).
McWashington v. Rodgers. Mr. McWashington, a Black man, was pulled over for slow rolling through stop signs in Houston. Our lawsuit alleges that, despite the fact that Mr. McWashington complied with commands to get out of the car – at one point laying on the ground with visibly empty hands – Houston Police Department officers released an out-of-control K9 on him, which mauled and harmed him grievously.
Harrington v. Lancaster. In January 2024, Civil Rights Corps filed a federal lawsuit against three members of the Harris County Constables, Precinct 2 on behalf of Harris County resident Tyler Harrington. The complaint alleges that officers James Lancaster, Nathaniel Cano, and Jared Lindsay conducted a warrantless no-knock entry into Mr. Harrington’s home in the middle of the night and held him at gunpoint. The complaint raises several claims against the defendants, including violations of the Fourth Amendment for unlawful entry, unlawful search, unlawful seizure, and excessive force.
Lewis v. District of Columbia. Our lawsuit alleges that, on two separate occasions, Malaika Lewis and her minor daughter, N.L., were subjected to horrendous treatment at the hands of police officers. After Ms. Lewis contacted police for help locating her older daughter, the lawsuit alleges that police officers separated Ms. Lewis from her younger daughter, N.L., for hours while attempting to illegally search her apartment based on one officer's unfounded hunch that she was somehow hiding a boyfriend who had committed an unspecified crime.
Ramos v Erwin. In 2023, Civil Rights Corps filed a lawsuit against 5 Houston Police Department officers on behalf of Houston resident Alberto Ramos. The complaint alleges that defendant HPD officers racially profiled, hogtied, and arrested Mr. Ramos without probable cause.
Thomas v. Bruss. In February 2023, Civil Rights Corps brought suit on behalf of Kerry Lee Thomas against three then-deputies of the Harris County Constables’ Office, Precinct 1. In February 2023, Civil Rights Corps Attorney Shirley LaVarco and Deputy Director Brittany Francis brought suit on behalf of Kerry Lee Thomas against three then-deputies of the Harris County Constables’ Office, Precinct 1. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants subjected Mr. Thomas to a brutal K-9 attack while he lay prone on the ground with his arms outstretched. Shortly thereafter, the K-9’s handler, then-Sergeant Robert Johnson cracked gruesome jokes about the attack, namely that his dog was “full” and “satisfied” after tearing the flesh from Mr. Thomas’s right arm. Mr. Thomas further alleges that deputies Eric M. Bruss and Wayne Schultz not only failed to intervene, but also helped cover up the attack by falsifying records and reports. In addition, Mr. Thomas’s lawsuit cites important historical evidence that modern day police K-9 units have their roots in chattel slavery and anti-Black terror. That evidence is summarized as follows: Mr. Thomas is far from the first Black man to be brutalized in this way. Even before the proliferation of modern “K-9 units,” dogs have long been used to terrorize Black people. Throughout the United States, and especially in the South, dogs were bred and groomed to maul enslaved Black people for running away or otherwise angering their enslavers. Historians have drawn a straight line from this gruesome antebellum practice to the modern use of attack dogs by policing agencies like the Harris County Constable. On August 15, 2023 U.S. District Court Judge Lee H. Rosenthal denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In a powerful opinion, the Court underscored its concern about the misconduct alleged here: “The court does not understand the reason for commanding a police dog to bite and severely injure a suspect, the subject of a noise complaint, who had been compliant, prone, and visibly unarmed for four minutes." The court also denied the bystander officers' claim of qualified immunity, finding that Mr. Thomas plausibly alleged that Bruss and Schultz had sufficient notice of the constitutional violations underfoot but nonetheless failed to intervene, despite ample opportunity.


