Court To Hear Challenge To Costly Calls From Prison
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
The state’s highest court tomorrow will hear a legal challenge to the high fees associated with placing collect calls from the state’s prison system.
Currently, outgoing prison collect calls are billed a flat $3 connection fee and cost 16 cents a minute. Relatives and friends of inmates who accept the charges have long complained that they are illegal on a number of grounds. The lead plaintiff in a class action suit on their behalf, Ivey Walton, has paid more than $50 in a month to accept collect calls from her son and nephew, who are incarcerated.
The prison telephone system is run by MCI. The rates charged are among the highest of any state prison system in the country, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Rachel Meeropol, told The New York Sun.
“You can’t tax a small percentage of the population just because they want to speak with their loved ones in prison,” Ms. Meeropol, who is affiliated with the Manhattan-based Center for Constitutional Rights, said.
The state prison system takes issue with characterizing the fees as a tax.
“They are essentially access fees or rent paid by the telephone company,” a lawyer in the attorney general’s office, Victor Paladino, wrote on behalf of the state’s Department of Correctional Services. “That MCI passes these expenses on to recipients of collect calls does not transform them into taxes.”
By contract, MCI is required to return 57.5% of the gross revenue from these phone calls to the state, which uses the funds to defray a variety of prison expenses, including health care, according to court documents. The phone system handles about 6 million calls a year, and has generated between $15 million and $24 million each year for the state since a contract was first signed in 1996, according to papers filed by the state.
The state, in its brief, told the court that “it would be difficult to overstate the disruptive effect” on state prisons that would result if it was required to refund the money.
The lower two courts that have heard the case have both ruled in favor of the state on a statute of limitations technicality. Those rulings leave the door open for the plaintiffs to bring the lawsuit again when a new contract is signed.
The public advocate for New York City, Betsy Gotbaum, and 14 members of the City Council filed a brief on behalf of the relatives’ class action.
