In a recent move, over 20 cities in Los Angeles County have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court, seeking a review of the zero-bail policy implemented by the Los Angeles County Superior Court last year. According to a report by the Pasadena Star-News, this controversial policy eliminates cash bail for all offenses, except for the most serious crimes.
The Petition for Review, submitted on September 22, argues that the zero-bail policy is founded on “flawed and insufficient data” and fails to uphold the constitutional and legal obligations of the Superior Court in establishing bail practices. Furthermore, it claims that the policy neglects to prioritize the safety of victims and the public.
The cities participating in this petition include Arcadia, Azusa, Beverly Hills, Cerritos, Covina, Downey, Glendora, Industry, La Habra, La Mirada, La Verne, Lomita, San Dimas, and Santa Fe Springs, among others.
As the lawsuit progresses, the Supreme Court has refrained from commenting. Last October, the court introduced a new Pre-Arraignment Release Protocol (PARP), also known as “zero-bail” or “no-cash bail,” which removes financial conditions for most misdemeanors and certain felonies prior to arraignment. Law enforcement agencies have been directed to cite and release or book and release suspects, who are then required to appear in court later.
Serious violent crimes, including murder, kidnapping, robbery, and assaults involving deadly weapons, still require bail. Law enforcement can seek bail for specific cases, with judges determining whether releasing an individual poses a risk. Once arraignments occur, judges have the discretion to detain defendants or impose monetary bail as they normally would.
In a significant 2021 ruling, the California Supreme Court determined that detaining someone solely due to their inability to pay bail is unconstitutional. Following this, six plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles and the LAPD in 2022, challenging the use of cash bail locally. In May 2023, another judge issued a preliminary injunction, mandating the county to reinstate the zero-bail policy that had been in effect during the pandemic until the case reaches trial.
Cities opposing the zero-bail policy subsequently sued the Superior Court, aiming to halt these regulations. However, Orange County Judge William Claster ruled against the cities twice, in December last year and again in May, asserting that the zero-bail policy was an injunction from a different case and that the court lacked authority to take actions that would interfere with the proceedings of other divisions dealing with the same case. These cities then escalated their case to the appellate court, but their appeal was dismissed in early September.
The recent petition contends that the California Supreme Court might be the only avenue for these cities to seek a review of bail regulations. It claims that the court based its implementation of PARP on flawed data from the pilot program established during the pandemic. Attorneys involved argue that uniformly eliminating bail requirements is unconstitutional.
