DETROIT, Mich. — The Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) and 27 other law enforcement and legal leaders filed an amicus brief in S.L. v. Swanson, challenging Genesee County’s blanket ban on in-person visits at its jail, a policy they say undermines public safety, violates constitutional rights, and harms families and communities.
The FJP argues the policy, enacted in 2014, severs vital familial ties without individualized justification, disproportionately impacts low-income families, and contradicts sound correctional practice. “This policy severs vital familial ties with no legitimate justification of individualized review,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala.
The brief notes the ban coincided with contracts between the county and private vendors—first Securus Technologies, then Global Tel*Link—that generated revenue from video and phone calls. The GTL contract extends through 2027 and pays the county a portion of call revenue, while calls can cost families $10 for 25 minutes. The brief argues this “kickback scheme” creates a financial incentive to maintain the ban on in-person contact.
According to FJP and its fellow amici, the ban violates the Michigan Constitution’s due process protections and harms individuals who are legally presumed innocent. “Most of the named Plaintiffs’ parents and children experienced pretrial detention for over a year,” the brief states, often held simply because they couldn’t afford bail.
“Detained parents are especially vulnerable to this pressure,” the brief adds. Research cited in the filing indicates that lack of in-person contact contributes to mental health deterioration, increases pressure to plead guilty, and raises the risk of wrongful convictions.
The amicus brief describes widespread and well-documented harms: from higher rates of self-harm and jail violence to lasting trauma for those incarcerated and their families. “Even one in-person, face-to-face visit reduced recidivism by 13% for new crimes and by 25% for technical violations,” the brief states, citing a Minnesota Department of Corrections study.
The FJP further contends that the jail’s justification—reducing contraband—is unsupported by evidence. “Contrary to Defendants’ assertions,” the brief explains, “visitors are not the primary source of contraband entering into jails.” The filing cites examples from New York’s Rikers Island and Texas prisons, where drug seizures rose after in-person visitation was suspended.
The policy’s impact extends beyond individuals in custody. “Bans on in-person visitations result in significant harm to detained individuals, their loved ones, jail employees, and the community at large,” the brief says. Children are particularly affected, with some studies showing incarcerated mothers became increasingly suicidal as visitation bans extended.
FJP and its co-signers include current and former prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, and police chiefs.
As the brief concludes: “The only theoretical benefit of a total ban on in-person visitation is the increased revenue gained by forcing families to pay for video and phone visitation. This type of financial incentive should not be prioritized over the safety and wellness of detained individuals, jail employees, and community members.”
