Login to be deported: in America’s virtual deportation crisis

First, there is the lack of consistency. Housing courts across the country use a variety of services including Webex, Zoom, BlueJeans, and others. In some places, like St. Louis, which has city and county courts, the situation is divided: one court uses Zoom and the other Webex. Additionally, some courts are completely virtual, while others are hybrid, and others switch between virtual, hybrid and in person, sometimes within the same cases. This creates plenty of opportunities for confusion: Diamond, for example, says he was asked to appear in person for his second hearing, but the next one is scheduled for Webex.)

On top of that, notifications from Zoom or Webex can get lost in spam, preventing tenants from appearing in court and in some cases receiving predetermined eviction sentences.

Then there is the question of access. With so many services shut down, including libraries and schools that could provide free Wi-Fi, some defendants have not been able to access the meetings at all. Others had difficulty submitting documents, either in person or by uploading to the web.

Tenants with disabilities, such as hearing loss, or those who need translation assistance, are even more limited. Camp says he was horrified by a case in which a tenant evicted by videoconference had to rely on the eviction of the same property manager to translate for court. If the hearing had taken place in person, Camp says, the court would have been required to provide translation services.

Valerie Hartman, a public information officer for the 16th Jackson County Circuit Court, which is not the location of the incident that described the camp, says her court took a number of ‘accommodations for people with disabilities and provides interpretation services when they request. “All parties always have the option of contacting the judge to request that the hearing take place in person rather than virtually,” he said.