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
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 […]
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.
Millet v District of Columbia. In March of 2023, CRC brought suit on behalf of David Millet against the District of Columbia, Metropolitan Department Police Officer Peter Apollon, three John Doe Special Police Officers, Special Police Officer (SPO) Darrell Harris, Jr., and Security Assurance Management, Inc.
Jackson v. District of Columbia. In 2023, we filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia and two Metropolitan Police Department Officers alleging that MPD officer seized and arrested Mr. Jackson without probable cause within seconds of approaching him on a sidewalk, assaulted him during the arrest, and then jailed Mr. Jackson for over 24 hours.
Prosecutors are some of the most powerful lawyers and are only rarely held accountable for professional misconduct. In New York, journalists have documented dozens of court findings of prosecutorial misconduct with no consequence. The New York Times Editorial Board wrote in 2018, “there’s no reliable system for holding prosecutors accountable for their misconduct, and they certainly can’t be entrusted with policing themselves.”
Singleton v. Cannizzaro. Our lawsuit sought to end the unconstitutional deception and jailing of crime victims and witnesses by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. The lawsuit accused District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro’s office of fabricating subpoenas to coerce crime victims and witnesses of crimes into submitting to private out-of-court interrogations; illegal attempts to coerce untruthful testimony; and office-wide practice of presenting fraudulent information in court to persuade judges to issue arrest warrants. In 2017, Civil Rights Corps, with our partners at the ACLU and the ACLU of Louisiana, filed a lawsuit in federal court against District Attorney Cannizzaro and ten assistant district attorneys.
Hudson v. Montgomery County. In early February 2020, Plaintiff Keisha Hudson, who was then Deputy Chief Public Defender for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, directed the filing of an amicus brief challenging the money bail system. Later that month, Hudson was fired from her job. CRC and partners filed a lawsuit on Hudson’s behalf that alleged that she was fired in retaliation for the amicus brief, thereby violating her First Amendment rights.