LA County cities ask state Supreme Court to take up zero-bail fight – Daily Breeze

Lawyers for 22 cities have filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to review the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s implementation of a zero-bail policy last year that eliminated cash bail for all but the most serious crimes.

The Petition for Reconsideration, filed on September 22, alleges that zero bail fails the Supreme Court’s “obligatory constitutional and statutory duties to give great consideration to the victim and public safety when adopting such bail schedules” and is based on “erroneous, insufficient data” filed according to.

Cities opposing zero bail include Arcadia, Artesia, Azusa, Beverly Hills, Cerritos, Covina, Downey, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Mirada, La Verne, Lakewood, Lancaster, Norwalk, Paramount, Rosemead, San Dimas, Santa Yer is taking. Clarita and Santa Fe Springs.

“Rather than upholding its statutory and constitutional obligations, LASC bowed to political and legal pressure and forfeited bail money for nearly all misdemeanors and a significant number of felonies,” attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow wrote in the petition. “These actions and the resulting plans are therefore a violation of the law.”

A Supreme Court spokesman declined to comment due to ongoing litigation.

The Supreme Court implemented new bail planreferred to as the Pre-Trial Release Protocol or PARPlast October. The protocol, commonly described as zero bail or cashless bail, eliminates financial requirements for release from custody before trial for most misdemeanors and some felonies. Instead, police officers are instructed to “release on a warrant” or “arrest and release” suspects in connection with these crimes, and the defendants are ordered to appear in court at a later date.

Serious and violent crimes such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon are not eligible and previous bail amounts are still retained. Law enforcement may also request a bail waiver for certain crimes; Here, a magistrate judge will review the case to determine whether the individual’s release poses a risk.

After the hearing is held (up to 30 days later for released defendants), the judge may take the defendant into custody or release him on monetary bail as usual.

In 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to arrest a person simply because they cannot post bail. Six plaintiffs later challenged the use of cash bail locally through a class-action lawsuit filed in 2022 against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department. A Superior Court judge in that case granted a preliminary injunction in May 2023 requiring the county to revert to the zero bail policy implemented during the pandemic until the case goes to trial.

The opposing cities then sued the Supreme Court to stop implementation of the bail plan, but the Orange County judge who stepped in to oversee the case said Ruled against cities in December and again in May. In his ruling, Judge William Claster found that the case could not proceed because the Supreme Court had effectively implemented zero bail in response to an injunction granted in a separate case.

“The court has no authority to take any action that might interfere with a case pending in another division of the same court,” Claster wrote.

The cities then tried to take the case to the Court of Appeals, but the appeals court refused to hear the case in early September.

The recently filed Petition for Review states that the Supreme Court “may be the only way cities can get their (bail) programs reviewed.” He argues that LASC used flawed data from a pandemic-era pilot program as the basis for implementing the PARP. According to the petition, attorneys also argue that uniformly eliminating the monetary requirement for bail does not comply with language in the state constitution.

“The safety of one-quarter of the state’s population is at stake, and at the very least it warrants the full attention of this court,” Barlow wrote.

Kathleen Galvin-Surbatovic, spokeswoman for the city of Whittier, said in a statement that she hopes the Supreme Court will either review the merits of the case or send the matter to the Court of Appeals for consideration.

“The data on which the Los Angeles Superior Court relies for the current implementation of the zero bail plan is particularly concerning; previous pilot program data showed a 42% failure rate for pretrial release; This means that those who were released prior to appearing before a judge did not appear in court as promised,” he said in an email.

Last year the Supreme Court issued a decision. data control panel Implementation of PARP is being tracked as part of a transparency initiative, but the dataset does not appear to track key information such as “failure to appear” rates and is nearly six months old across several categories at the time of this reporting. Although outdated, the data shows that 91% of cases reviewed by a magistrate from October 1, 2023, to April 23, resulted in the person being detained pending trial. These reviews occurred in approximately 30% of total bookings.

Supreme Court in April praised the achievements of the policy, CEO David Slayton said at the time that only a few of those booked under the system had committed new crimes.