Ravalli County Jail Diversion Program Faces Legal Challenge Over Fees and Due Process

MISSOULA, MT – A class-action lawsuit against Ravalli County, Montana, alleging due process violations within its pretrial diversion program, is nearing its conclusion in U.S. District Court. Whereas a judge dismissed a claim of false imprisonment on Wednesday, the core of the case – whether the county’s fee structure infringes on the rights of defendants – remains before the jury.

Background of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit, Leonard et al vs. Ravalli County, was initially filed in August 2021. Plaintiffs argue that individuals awaiting trial are required to pay substantial fees to participate in the Jail Diversion Program, even before being convicted of any crime. Those unable to afford the fees face potential jail time, raising concerns about wealth-based discrimination within the justice system. The program, initiated in 2018, aims to provide an alternative to traditional incarceration, but plaintiffs contend it creates a two-tiered system based on financial status.

Dismissal of False Imprisonment Claim

Judge Dana Christensen dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim of false imprisonment, stating that the evidence did not support allegations of unlawful restraint. The county argued that any delays in release were necessary for processing and ensuring compliance with court orders, not a result of wrongful detention. Specifically, the judge found that plaintiff Daniel O’Toole was not held in jail solely due to inability to pay fees. However, the due process claims remain active and will be decided by the jury.

Concerns Over Fees and Lack of Appeal

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is the lack of transparency and appeal options regarding the fees charged. Witnesses testified they pay fees ranging from $300 to $400 per month, with some exceeding $1,000, to cover costs associated with program requirements like alcohol monitoring. Crucially, plaintiffs claim there is no mechanism to challenge these fees or receive refunds, even if they ultimately prevail in the case. One plaintiff, Charles Post, testified he became homeless while struggling to afford the fees, sacrificing necessities like medication to avoid re-incarceration.

County’s Defense and Program Justification

Ravalli County maintains that the state authorizes pretrial services and permits counties to charge for them. Sheriff’s officials have stated the program was implemented to improve the county’s justice system. Justice of the Peace Jennifer Ray testified that some participants have expressed gratitude for the program, citing positive changes in their lives and sobriety. However, Ray acknowledged she has no authority to adjust the fees for those facing financial hardship.

Ongoing Trial and Remaining Arguments

As of Thursday, March 12, 2026, the trial is expected to conclude with closing arguments. The plaintiffs, represented by Equal Justice Under Law and Upper Seven Law firms, are seeking reimbursement of pretrial fees and systemic changes to ensure due process for all defendants. The core argument centers on whether the county’s fee structure violates the constitutional rights of individuals presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Key Takeaways

• A class-action lawsuit challenges the legality of Ravalli County’s pretrial diversion program.
• Plaintiffs allege the program’s fees create a wealth-based discrimination scheme.
• A false imprisonment claim was dismissed, but due process claims remain before the jury.
• Concerns center on the lack of transparency and appeal options for program fees.
• The case has broader implications for pretrial justice systems nationwide.