thank you todd case number sixteen dash five to nine five david jones versus clark county kentucky frank duo individually and all argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr ba jones believes that this case presents a very simple question and that is whether the state and were quite are you to reimburse the cost incarceration even after you've proven you are innocent of the clubs would you were imprisoned the low the defendants did not challenge with your jones innocence did they offer to also rising county governments to automatically couple skate money in the possession of pretrial detainee is now  particularly no answer as to defend its head most recently brought to the court's attention the supreme court has denied a motion for discretionary review in the cloak patterson case and they have been allowed to stand perpetration of the statute that permits generally at this point the withholding of lenny's from pretrial detainee's which the court has has said they can do without the next day i pray deprivation here in this case they are effectively arguing and i beg you below that they're entitled to do so even without a post deprivation hearing and even in the case of an individual who has demonstrated his innocence we believe that there are no question and this judge rogers and you know it so your argument is that a procedural due process  i'm having trouble seeing what what what the relevance of the question whether you're required to embarrass even after even after the crime has been found to be not assuming about understand your case it's assuming that the affairs is legal or not legal they just haven't gone through the right procedures because you're making a procedural due process argument you could make some sort of other argument i don't know what it would be to this state statute which allows as compensation and i concede sounds a little unfair ample raw but you're not really challenging it you're just challenging the procedures that are no procedure that that's alledged to an absence of procedure it's not a challenge to the substance of whether they owe the money right but then you when you need to get back to whether they owe the money police say we're entitled to keep what we've taken form from you regardless of your innocence and the burden is on you to either pay for us to sue you for the balance us to  or if you get sued and there's a process right there is your honor but we don't believe it it's our contention that bets and that's not the type of ordinated refund process that should be to tell you that the cases on these particular issues are fairly few and far between if i don't believe going to collect on the bill to be just a validation of fundamental due process presumption of innocence because the burden is being placed resolve this issue what would be the basis for saying that this is not legal and she agri below what's the basis what the federal basis for saying it's illegal but my contention argument in that regard would be  and what will your argument be then it's not i'm not even sure it's relevant here but i'm just curious do you absalom sort of substantive argument or do you only have procedural arguments good speech or arguments not going to do you such much good if you get some sort of hearing and you lose of the hearing interfere with the of the detainees ability to retain counsel but overriding that i believe is the statement in the opinion directly match what we're dealing with here but what we're dealing with here is something i would tend to be even more indefensible which is after an individual has demonstrated their innocence into the subsidy argument mr bell the characterizes the facts of this particular case your twenty dollars that's not what happened here according to the way the complaint was pled instead mr jones alleged that he was arrested he was incarcerated he was released upon his release he was given a bill proport thousand dollars and after his release he paid twenty dollars so what we don't piece from an inmate can help regardless of whether they were a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner in this particular case i think it's important the way the complaint was pl because to establish a procedural due process claim there's got to be a deprivation of mr jones as property and i to collect that remaining money your honor instead it sent a bill it received twenty dollars that's it there are no further collection efforts no further efforts to go after mr jones and you're representing them are you not i am representing the detention center of the county and frank will the jailer correct you're saying that they're not going to t dollars and this isn't what is our problem and it's a twenty dollars problem that doesn't raise a constitutional question for the court because we didn't deprive mr jones of any money arguably like was done in circles where there was an automatic deduction from the canteen account of the inmate where funds may have been placed there by the inmate or may have been given to the inmates by friends or family members lot of other cases that we've started up help the constitutional that practice from a procedural due process standpoint so here we're in a situation where mr jones according to the complaint proved his innocence but he paid twenty dollars after he was released and i would submit that that's not a deprivation it is property interests efficient district or proceed through due process protections procedural due process past is met here is that the private insurers led by the allen for minimal that that's from your group would this case come out differently if the county had in fact collected four thousand dollars here instead of twenty pounds i think it's procedural due process in the context of each case being somewhat flexible i think that's something that would factor into the equation your honor we have to look at all of the individual factors and the fact it was for balance and that's certainly different than twenty dollars but we also have to look at it i would submit in the context was there a risk of an erroneous deprivation in addition to the size of  interest at stake what were the governmental interest whether adequate deprivation remedies so i think it all has to be looked at in context of all of those matters to be underage factors and i would submit in its case even if it were four thousand dollars that mr jones had paid that all of those factors would have still weighed heavily in favor of finding that his procedural due process rights were not by lated because he your risk of running a separation was minor it's a similar except type of procedure and forty one point two five it talks about the jail or providing a copy of the bill to the inmate and the inmate being able to negotiate and i would submit at that point there's a specific reference to negotiation in the language of the statute and i would submit to that manner so that doesn't seem to add up to much but there's also a but the post operation remedy where he could assert a defense that under section three of the statute jailers are authorized to file suit certainly is affirmative defense the inmate could raise that and for then he would certainly have a forum to do depth before a court and that would also support and protect the inmates rights and give him a procedural due process protections case it's not been briefed to such it's been argued primarily as a procedural due process case but assuming that it is a substantive due process question i think that number one by virtue of sickles and the cases that have  been decided on that issue in cases from other circuits that it would pass muster under such due process because it would not be conduct that shocks the conscience which i understand would be to test  situation i know your honor that you previously asked mr balsillie about the a quick ability of the each case and i would submit that that is not up to governing or even persuasive authority for a substitute process argument because a lawyer said to do with here is a jail imposing looking feeds and produce to offset the cost of incarceration for people who were brought to their jail presumably arrested upon probable confiscated anything mr jones process clause or deception of due process clause of the fourteenth amendment oh terribly for i can't speak to whether he felt compelled to pay it all i can goodbyes what he's your statement about whether the county is going to go after the remainder of the money at one point you said there's no evidence that they well but at another point you seemed to undertake on behalf of the county that they would not which is that they're not going to go after the money and i apologize if that was your or your undertaking that on behalf of your client that they're not going to go after that money is correct that i am representing that i'm telling that to the court even though we're here on a motion to dismiss and we  for some of the money and in which case you would have it he would have a lawsuit and in that lawsuit the same lawyer could go in and then make substantive arguments which would not be precluded by what we would took action to go after mr jones or mr jones did something else or if there are some other case that comes down the pike you know that involves those types of facts then we would have to look at that point time whether or not it's a subset of due process case or and issue before the court have been fully set up in the briefs you know the thing that i would point out one less thing because it came up in one of the questions rather was whether or not this was a fourth amendment case mr begley conceded before the district court that this was not a citizen sat in jail for fourteen months said the question of whether his money was withheld during that period of time as it is even if it was is not a focus of the dispute we had with what down so you may hang up at this time