Using the provided source, generate a concise summary:

SECTION Case 2 Document 110 Filed Page 1 of 57 1 Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321 Joshua D. Bendor, 031908 2 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 N. Central Ave., Suite 2100 3 Phoenix, Arizona (602) 4 teckstein@omlaw.com jbendor@omlaw.com 5 A. Dami Animashaun 6 Katherine Chamblee-Ryan Olevia Boykin 7 CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street NW, Second Floor 8 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 9 dami@civilrightscorps.org katie@civilrightscorps.org 10 olevia@civilrightscorps.org 11 Attorneys for SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 14 DeShawn Briggs, Mark Pascale, 15 McKenna Stephens, and Lucia Soria, on behalf of themselves and all others No. _______________ 16 similarly situated; Taja Collier, SECOND AMENDED CLASS 17 v. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s, ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND 18 William Montgomery, in his official 19 capacity as County Attorney of Maricopa County; Maricopa County; 20 Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Inc., 21 SECTION DefendantSECTION s. 22 OVERVIEW 23 1. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) and the Treatment 24 Assessment Screening Center (TASC) jointly operate a possession of marijuana 25 diversion that penalizes the poor because of their poverty. 26 27 1 This diversion program is referred to in the Complaint as “the possession of 28 marijuana diversion program,” “the marijuana diversion program,” and “the program.” Case 2 Document 110 Filed Page 2 of 57 1 2. In a “diversion” program, participants undergo a period of supervision 2 and must meet certain requirements to avoid criminal prosecution and conviction. 3 3. The programs are generally “a functional equivalent of a sentence to 4 pretrial probation... and are staffed with paraprofessionals overseeing individuals in 5 what is in effect a probationary-type of supervision and 6 4. In principle, the programs are “intended to relieve overburdened courts 7 and crowded jails, and to spare low-risk offenders from the devastating consequences 8 of a criminal 9 5. But in Maricopa County, they serve another purpose to make money for 10 those who operate the program, including the MCAO.4 11 6. Between 2006 and 2016, MCAO collected nearly $15 million in revenue 12 by diverting threatened prosecutions to TASC.5 13 7. The length of time a person spends in the diversion program and whether 14 the person ultimately completes the program and avoids felony criminal prosecution 15 depends on whether she can pay the program’s required fees. 16 17 2 S. Rep. No. at 36–37 (1974) (describing the operation of two pretrial diversion programs). 18 3 Shaila Dewan & Andrew W. Lehren, No Money, No Mercy After a Crime, the Price of a Second Chance, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2016), 19 https 20 diversion.html. 4 See Megan Cassidy, If Prop. 205 Passes, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 21 Funds From Marijuana Diversion Program Would Dry Up, Ariz. Republic (Oct. 26, 22 2016), https 23 Ray Stern, If Prop 205 Passes, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Budget is Likely to Take a Hit, Phoenix New Times (Oct. 31, 2016), 24 https 25 Ray Stern, Potential Marijuana Legalization in Arizona Threatens TASC Drug Treatment Firm’s Funding, Phoenix 26 New Times (Jan. 26, 2016), https //www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/potential- 27 28 5 See Cassidy, supra note 4. 2 Case 2 Document 110 Filed Page 3 of 57 1 8. In order to complete the program and avoid felony criminal prosecution, 2 participants in the marijuana diversion program must pay a fee of $950 or $1000. 3 9. Participants must also pay $15 or $17 for each drug and alcohol test; they 4 may be required to take as many as three or four tests each week. 5 10. The program is two-tiered people who meet program requirements— 6 completing a three-hour drug education seminar and routine drug and alcohol testing— 7 and are wealthy enough to pay the $950 or $1000 program fee complete the program in 8 90 days and are no longer subject to felony criminal prosecution. 9 11. But participants who cannot pay the program

Summary: 


On August 23, 2018, three Maricopa County, Arizona residents who have been referred to Maricopa County's Marijuana Diversion program filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief, claiming that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Treatment Assessment Screening Center jointly operated a marijuana possession diversion program that discriminated against the poor in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and led to unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs amended their complaint twice to include new named plaintiffs for the class. The District Court denied the defendant's motions to dismiss the complaint, and discovery is ongoing both for class certification and the underlying claims.

