California Supreme Court Rules Bail System Unconstitutional

In a landmark case with amicus curia briefs filed by dozens of stakeholders throughout the Country, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the current bail system unconstitutionally discriminates against individuals charged with crimes who are unable to afford bail.

            In re Kenneth Humphrey is a groundbreaking change in the law.

ROBBERY OF ELDERLY VICTIM

            Kenneth Humphrey, 66 years old, was arrested on May 23, 2017, for forcefully taking $7 and a bottle of cologne from a 79-year old victim who lived in Humphrey’s low rent housing complex. Humphrey had four prior serious felony convictions for robbery, but no arrests in the preceding 14 years.

            Bail was set at $600,000, later reduced to $350,000.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

            Humphrey’s lawyers filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was financially unable to make bail and the court should have considered his ability to pay or alternative methods of insuring he may showed up for court appearances. Ultimately Humphrey was released on the condition that he wear an electronic ankle bracelet, stay away from the victim and participate in a substance abuse treatment program for seniors. The constitutionality of money bail made its way to the California Supreme Court.

THE HIGH COST OF PRETRIAL DETENTION IN AMERICA

            The Supreme Court reviewed bail statistics. “Studies documented that on any given day, nearly half a million people – none of whom has yet been convicted of a charge or offense – sit in America’s jails awaiting trial. Just six California counties spent $3.7 million over a 2-year period jailing people who were never charged or who had charges dropped or dismissed. The United States Department of Justice estimates that keeping the pretrial population behind bars costs American taxpayers roughly $9 billion per year.

COURT RULING

            The Supreme Court determined the trial court had failed to consider Humphrey’s ability to afford $350,000 for bail and whether less restrictive alternatives could have protected public and victim safety and assured his appearance in court.

            The Court wrote, “When making any bail determination, a superior court must undertake an individualized consideration of the relevant factors. These factors include the protection of the public as well as the victim, the seriousness of the charged offence, the arrestee’s previous criminal record and history of compliance with court orders, and the likelihood that the arrestee will appear at future court proceedings.”  

            The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ no bail release of Humphrey and the Court’s alternative conditions, including his participation in a residential substance abuse treatment program for seniors, electronic monitoring, and order to stay away from the victim and the victim’s residence, and a requirement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and outpatient treatment.

            Humphrey’s case essentially upended California’s cash bail system. And is likely to be followed in other jurisdictions.

           Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter Simon licensed in California and Nevada, with offices in Truckee and Tahoe City, California, and Reno, Nevada. These are Jim’s personal opinions. Jim’s practice areas include:  real estate, development, construction, business, HOA’s, contracts, personal injury, accidents, mediation and other transactional matters.  He may be reached at porter@portersimon.com or www.portersimon.com.   Like us on Facebook.    ©2021