Days after a hearing over the constitutionality of Arkansas' parole revocation system, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker issued a ruling in plaintiffs' favor.
In Arkansas, formerly incarcerated people can be re-arrested for violating the terms of their parole and put through the revocation process. Inmates say their 14th Amendment rights are regularly violated during speedy revocation hearings.
They complain their legal right to mount a defense is not sufficiently explained to them. They also argue the Americans With Disabilities Act is not followed in hearings. Many inmates are hard of hearing or illiterate and not given accommodations.
By granting the injunction, Baker argues a larger suit about parole revocations is likely to succeed on the merits. The ruling also sets rules for future parole hearings — these include requiring counsel for inmates, offering “reasonable accommodations” and explaining to inmates their rights.
“The deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” the ruling said.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. At a hearing in late February, the ACLU offered testimony from inmate Shannon Miner. He is serving another sentence for a parole revocation pulled last year. Miner says he was unaware of his rights during the hearing. He signed paperwork waving away his rights, but claims he doesn't know what the paperwork said. His claims are similar to those made by other inmates in the fillings.
Baker relied on a 1972 Supreme Court case, Morrissey v. Brewer, which says parole hearings should have 14th Amendment protections. This includes a "neutral and detached” board to oversee the case.
Inmates say that Community Service Officers were responsible for reading inmates their rights and often pressured them to sign them away. The judge said the hearings should be conducted by “someone “not directly involved in the case” given the apparent adversarial nature of CSOs in the revocation process.”
At the hearing, the state said the inmates did not constitute a class in a class action. The judge disagreed with this interpretation.
The state is appealing the ruling.
