Reply #32: Well...

[varkam]

it could be considered an unlawful taking as it doesn't seem, from the article, that prisoners are entitled to any sort of a hearing to challenge whether or not they are indigent - that seems to be just a determination that the Sheriff's Dept makes. Considering the rather hefty price (e.g. 14k/yr) I think that would be significant.

Also, could be that it's a violation of the equal protection clause in that two individuals in similar situations would be treated much differently under the law (if one prisoner can "afford" to pay it and the other can't) - but I'm less sure on that one.

In addition, the ex post facto clause might be at play if they're applying it across the board (e.g. even with inmates who were already incarcerated when this went into effect). But I'm guessing that they would do some hand-waving and say that it's not punishment (even though that seemed to be what the councilman was getting at) - and I'm further guessing that the courts would let them.