13 N.Y.3d 475 (2009)

A state agency’s commission on inmate phone calls, where recipients voluntarily accept the calls, is not an illegal tax, taking without compensation, or a violation of equal protection or free speech rights under the New York Constitution.

Summary

Family members and legal service providers of inmates sued the NYS Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), challenging the commissions DOCS collected from inmate phone calls as unconstitutional. They argued the commissions were an illegal tax, a taking without just compensation, and violated equal protection and free speech rights. The Court of Appeals held that because call recipients voluntarily accepted the calls, the commission was not a tax or taking. Further, because all recipients of inmate calls were treated the same, and because alternative means of communication existed, no equal protection or free speech violations occurred. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing that while the policy was questionable, it did not violate the NY Constitution.

Facts

DOCS contracted with MCI to provide telephone services in state prisons. The agreement stipulated that MCI would pay DOCS a commission on each collect call made by inmates. DOCS used these commissions to fund programs within its Family Benefit Fund, including healthcare for inmates and bus services for family visitation. The Public Service Commission (PSC) approved MCI’s rate filings, including the commission, but later stated it lacked jurisdiction over the DOCS commission itself. Call recipients were informed that the call was from an inmate and had the option to refuse the call. Petitioners, who accepted collect calls and paid the rate, challenged the DOCS commission.

Procedural History

Petitioners sued DOCS and MCI, alleging various state constitutional violations. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the constitutional claims as time-barred, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals in Walton I reinstated the constitutional claims. On remand, the Supreme Court dismissed the claims on the merits. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the substantive constitutional arguments.

Issue(s)

1. Whether DOCS’s collection of commissions on inmate phone calls constituted an illegal tax or fee in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine and Article III, § 1 and Article XVI, § 1 of the New York Constitution?

2. Whether the DOCS commission amounted to a governmental taking of property without just compensation in violation of Article I, § 7(a) of the New York Constitution?

3. Whether the inclusion of the DOCS commission in the rates charged for telephone services violated the petitioners’ right to equal protection of the law under Article I, § 11 of the New York Constitution?

4. Whether the commission impeded the petitioners’ freedom to associate with and speak to their loved ones and clients, violating Article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution?

Holding

1. No, because MCI, not the call recipients, was obligated to pay the commission, and the commission was a contractual obligation, not a tax imposed on the recipients.

2. No, because the acceptance of collect calls was a voluntary action, and in exchange for their payments, petitioners received telephone services.

3. No, because the petitioners were not similarly situated to other New York residents who did not accept collect calls from inmates, and all recipients of inmate calls were treated the same.

4. No, because alternative means of communication remained available, such as mail and visitation, and the additional expense did not imperil the right of inmates to communicate with others.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that a tax is a charge exacted by the government for general costs, while a fee is related to a specific benefit received. Here, the commission was neither. MCI’s obligation to pay DOCS arose from a voluntary contract, similar to how property owners receive compensation for allowing payphones on their premises. The court distinguished this situation from a tax because the call recipients voluntarily accepted the calls and were not compelled to pay DOCS directly.

The court dismissed the takings claim because the petitioners voluntarily accepted the calls and received telephone services in exchange for their payment. There was no confiscation of property without consent. The court stated that the State Constitution does not mandate the lowest possible phone rates for inmates’ families.

Regarding free speech and association, the court applied the Turner v. Safley standard, which asks whether a policy impinging on prisoners’ constitutional rights is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The court found that because alternative means of communication existed, the commission did not substantially impair inmates’ right to communicate.

The court dismissed the equal protection claim, holding that the petitioners were not similarly situated to other New York residents. The court stated that all recipients of inmate calls were treated the same, and the security concerns attending incarceration justified the limited options available to inmates.

The court explicitly stated that its holding should not be seen as an endorsement of the DOCS policy, recognizing that the executive and legislative branches had already determined the commission was not a proper cost to pass on to families and legal representatives of inmates.