In a recent interview, we discussed a significant legal move involving Los Angeles County. Over 20 cities have united to submit a petition to the California Supreme Court, calling for a review of the zero-bail policy implemented by the Los Angeles County Superior Court last year. This policy allows for the elimination of cash bail for almost all offenses, except for the most serious crimes.
The Petition for Review, submitted on September 22, argues that the zero-bail policy is based on “flawed and insufficient data” and fails to uphold the constitutional and legal obligations that the Superior Court is required to follow when establishing bail procedures. Additionally, it claims that the policy does not prioritize the safety of victims and the public.
Among the cities participating in this petition are Arcadia, Azusa, Beverly Hills, Cerritos, Covina, Downey, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Mirada, La Verne, Los Angeles, San Dimas, and Santa Fe Springs.
The case is still ongoing, with the Supreme Court declining to comment at this stage. It’s worth noting that the new Pre-Arraignment Release Protocol (PARP), also referred to as the “zero-bail” or “no-cash bail” policy, was enacted in October last year. This initiative eliminated financial requirements for most misdemeanors and some felonies prior to arraignment. As per the new instructions, law enforcement agencies are now allowed to “cite and release” or “book and release” suspects, requiring them to appear in court at a later date.
Serious violent crimes like murder, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon still require bail to be set. In certain cases, law enforcement officers may request bail, and it is ultimately up to a judge to determine whether releasing the individual poses a risk. After arraignment, judges retain the discretion to hold defendants in custody or set bail as they see fit.
In a 2021 ruling, the California Supreme Court declared that detaining someone solely because they cannot afford bail is unconstitutional. Following this, six plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit in 2022 challenging the use of cash bail in Los Angeles County and the city. In May 2023, a judge issued a preliminary injunction compelling the county to reinstate the zero-bail policy that had been in place during the pandemic, pending the trial’s progress.
Subsequent legal action from cities opposing the zero-bail policy aimed to contest this ruling in the Supreme Court. However, Judge William Claster of Orange County ruled against these cities in December of last year and again in May, asserting that the Supreme Court’s implementation of the zero-bail policy was a directive from a separate case and that the court could not act in ways that might interfere with ongoing cases in other departments. These cities subsequently appealed the case, but the appellate court declined to take it up in early September.
The recent petition emphasizes that the California Supreme Court may be the only avenue for these cities to challenge bail policies, arguing that the high court based its implementation of the PARP on defective data from the pilot program during the pandemic. Attorneys involved point out that uniformly eliminating bail requirements is unconstitutional.
