Category: Bail

Deja Vu All Over Again

A March 4 article by By Paul Demko, Jeremy White and Jason Befferman published in POLITICO reports that liberal Democrat politicians in some of the nation’s most progressive cities are abandoning the soft-on-crime policies that they vigorously supported a few years ago. Back in 2020, as the George Floyd riots were tearing up these same cities, politicians running New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles and San Francisco were insisting that sentences for so-called “low level” drug and theft related crimes be reduced, that cash bail be eliminated and that criminals, including violent gang members, be released early to rehabilitation programs. The motivator for these policies was the systemic racism narrative promoted by progressive academics, non-profits like Black Lives Matter, race-baiting politicians and the national media. While this narrative had been pushed since the 1990s, it got major traction after Floyd’s death as deep blue cities reflexively cut police budgets, elected pro-defendant prosecutors and swept away consequences for crime. Then something happened.

Continue reading . . .

Inviting Lawlessness

Last weekend seven illegal aliens attacked two New York police officers in Times Square, beating and kicking them in the head and face. The incident was recorded on security cameras. The New York Daily News reports that six were arrested and charged with assault on a police officer before being released without bail. Five of the six are citizens of Venezuela, one is facing trial for an earlier assault and robbery. All were invited to enter the U.S. illegally by the current president. These criminals are fortunate to be in New York City. They live in tax-supported shelters where they receive free food, clothing and medical care. They don’t worry about being deported because New York is a sanctuary state.  While assaulting a police officer in most other states would put you in jail with high or no bail until trial, in New York City you get released on your own recognizance.  It is doubtful that any of these criminals will show up for trial, and even if they do, progressive Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is likely to cut them a deal to plead guilty for malicious mischief and release them on probation. Think I’m kidding, this is standard procedure in New York under its criminal justice reforms, supposedly adopted for racial justice, as noted in a recent post.

Continue reading . . .

LA Area Cities Protest Zero Bail Policy

California’s Constitution has two sections on bail. Both of them begin “A person [shall/may] be released on bail by sufficient sureties” followed by some exceptions. The differences between the two have yet to be worked out (stayed tuned), but two things are clear. First, the Constitution requires “sufficient sureties” for release on bail. Second, own-recognizance release is allowed on a discretionary basis, clearly intended as a case-by-case determination.

The Superior Court judges for Los Angeles County have nonetheless decided that most arrestees will be released with no surety at all, i.e., zero bail, and without any individual determination that the individual arrestee is a suitable candidate for “OR.” Can’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of the agenda.

There are 88 cities in this massive county, and some of them are deeply unhappy about this. Continue reading . . .

Illegal Free on Zero Bail Arrested for Rape

Last week illegal alien Cruz Garcia was charged with forcible rape and two related felonies in New York.  Danielle Wallace of Fox News reports that Garcia was automatically released without bail in June after being charged with felony drunk driving and other related crimes.  According to Delaware County prosecutors, on July 25th Garcia attacked a woman, strangling her until she nearly blacked out before raping her.  As a sanctuary state, New York prohibits state and local law enforcement from notifying federal immigration authorities when an illegal alien is arrested.  The state’s bail reform law, which took effect in 2020, required that Cruz be released without bail, enabling him to attack the woman a month later.  Had his June arrest occurred in Florida, Cruz would have been held for federal agents, preventing him from committing additional crimes.  Research documented by the Manhattan Institute and a separate study in California found that releasing arrestees without bail results in them committing additional crimes, including violent crimes.

The Price of Social Justice

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley’s recent piece, “The Economic and Human Costs of Protecting Criminals,” breaks down the impact of progressive sentencing reforms enacted across the country to achieve social justice.  The elimination of cash bail…the conversion of theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors…various “second chance” or so called smart sentencing laws enacted by democrat politicians to sentence habitual criminals to rehab rather than prison or jail, have come at a very high price.

“There’s little doubt that these policies, promoted in the name of social justice for the poor, result in more crimes being committed by people who otherwise would be behind bars. A study by two professors at the University of Utah, Paul Cassell and Richard Fowles, concluded that “after more generous release procedures were put in place, the number of released defendants charged with committing new crimes increased by 45%.” Proponents insist that only “low-level” and “nonviolent” offenders can take advantage of these reforms, but the study found that “the number of pre-trial releases charged with committing new violent crimes increased by an estimated 33%.” Shoplifters don’t always stick to shoplifting.”

Continue reading . . .

The Perfect Storm for Crime to Flourish in San Francisco

In San Francisco fear has become part of life for many of its residents. According to this article by Kenny Choi of CBS San Francisco:

Residents in San Francisco say they don’t feel safe amid an alarming rise in the number of burglaries across the city. Residents say the initial response form San Francisco police went nowhere. So after someone broke into her complex in the middle of the night, [Iryna] Gorb started sleuthing, obsessively collecting evidence on her own from neighbors’ cameras.  

 

Continue reading . . .

“Affordable Bail” Does Not Protect Public and Victim Safety

If an arrestee can be “admitted to bail,” (meaning pretrial release is not precluded), California law authorizes four different methods of pretrial release, only one of which has a monetary requirement. Those four methods include (1) money bail; (2) release on own recognizance (“OR”); (3) OR under supervision; and (4) pretrial diversion. At an arrestee’s first court appearance, a judge will decide if he or she should be released on OR (with or without supervision) or on money bail.

The California Supreme Court’s Humphrey decision announced yesterday initially acknowledged OR as a type of pretrial release, but then they completely ignored it as they delved right into the unconstitutional disparities of money bail. The court also glossed over the fact that Humphrey requested OR release under supervision twice and was denied twice. The trial court denied his request for OR release due to the seriousness of the crimes committed (first-degree residential robbery, first-degree residential burglary, inflicting non-great bodily injury on an elder or dependent adult, and theft from an elder or dependent adult PLUS three prior strikes), the vulnerability of the victim (a 79-year-old man), and on the recommendation against OR release from pretrial service’s Public Safety Assessment Report. In addition to public safety concerns, the trial court was also concerned that Humphrey was a “flight risk.”

What is OR release? Had the court taken the time to examine it in a bit more detail, the public would better understand that it is a discretionary non-monetary alternative to cash bail contained in Article I, section 12 of the California Constitution. Continue reading . . .

Courts Must Consider an Arrestee’s Ability to Pay Money Bail in California

This morning the California Supreme Court held that trial courts must consider an arrestee’s ability to pay when setting the amount of money bail in the case of In re Humphrey (S247278).

Humphrey, a repeat offender, was charged with robbery and burglary. Bail was initially set at $600,000, then later reduced to $350,000.  Humphrey’s request for pretrial release on his own recognizance (“OR”) without financial conditions was denied because the trial court found he was a danger to public safety and a “flight risk.”  Humphrey was unable to post bail and remained detained pretrial.  Humphrey filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court’s failure to inquire into his financial circumstances and to not consider less restrictive alternatives to money bail was a violation of his constitutional rights.  The California Attorney General initially opposed Humphrey’s position.  However, the AG later changed his position and agreed that Humphrey was entitled to a new bail hearing stating that he would “no longer defend ‘any application of the bail law that does not take into consideration a person’s ability to pay, or alternative methods of ensuring a person’s appearance at trial.'”    CJLF filed a brief (found here) arguing that public and victim safety, and whether the arrestee is considered a “flight risk,” are the primary considerations to be evaluated by a court when initially deciding whether an arrestee is eligible for pretrial release, and, if eligible, what type of pretrial release is appropriate under the circumstances—money bail or release on OR without financial conditions.  It was CJLF’s position that to release Humphrey on an amount that he could afford, or on other less restrictive alternatives, would essentially permit his release on his OR, which is contrary to the trial court’s findings regarding his danger to victim and public safety. Continue reading . . .

NYPD: Bail Reform Caused Surge in Gun Violence

New York City’s five police unions issued a statement this week citing the state’s bail reform law, which took effect in 2020, as the cause of last year’s 47% increase in murders and 100% increase in shootings.  Rocco Parascandola of the New York Daily News has this story, quoting the head of the Police Benevolent Association, “Our cops on the street warned us that it was happening.  We warned the politicians that this (bail reform) won’t work.  Violence will rise.  And it has.”

Continue reading . . .