LOS ANGELES (CN) — A California Superior Court Judge denied a request by the city and county of Los Angeles to dissolve a court order barring the two governmental entities from using pre-arraignment cash bail to hold arrestees for non-violent misdemeanors.
The preliminary injunction, issued in May, was in some ways superseded by the LA County Superior Court system two months later, which published a new bail schedule that was in near-perfect harmony with the order. Though it kept cash bail for violent, serious felonies, it replaced pre-arraignment cash bail (essentially the period of time between arrest and arraignment, when the accused makes his or her first court appearance) with a few different outcomes, depending on the offense. Those outcomes range from immediate release, to an instant referral to a magistrate judge. People arrested while already on parole are also sent to a magistrate for review.
The policy officially went into effect on Oct. 1. But the cash bail landscape in Los Angeles is ever shifting. On the Friday before the new policy took effect, 12 cities in LA County, including Whittier, Covina and Palmdale, filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court aimed at stopping the new bail schedule, arguing that it would lead to a "significant increase in criminals released back into the community.” A hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in that case has been scheduled for Nov. 17, though the motion itself has yet to be filed.
At a hearing Monday afternoon, attorneys for the plaintiffs revealed that the LA Court system published an updated version of the bail schedule — dubbed by the courts "Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols," or PARP — last week, to little fanfare (the first such announcement was accompanied by a press release; this one was not). The development came as a surprise to both the judge and the defendants.
Though PARP doesn't affect which crimes still trigger cash bail, it adds details about the treatment of arrestees who are already out on parole.
The purpose of the hearing was a motion by the city and county to dissolve the preliminary injunction blocking pre-arraignment cash bail. Lawyers for both parties argued that the injunction had outlived its usefulness, had been superseded by the courts, and was leading to confusion amongst law enforcement officials as to which policy to follow — the court system's or the one outlined in the injunction.
Dimitri Portnoi, a lawyer with O'Melveny & Meyers who represents LA County, said his firm has received multiple calls from police officers seeking clarification.
"People are confused," said Portnoi. "And that may result in mistakes. Because we don’t have something cleaner."
"It serves no utility for an injunction to be maintained," he added.
Molly Stevens, an attorney for the city of LA, argued that the lawsuit filed by the city of Whittier made little difference, since the court in Orange County was unlikely to strike down LA County's new bail schedule.
"If I’m a betting woman, I’m probably going to go for the Los Angeles Superior Court," said Stevens.
But the plaintiffs' attorneys disagreed. They said the two new developments proved just how fragile the new bail system is. The preliminary injunction was still needed, they argued, as a kind of backstop.
"We are 23 days into PARP," said plaintiff's attorney Taylor Menninger. "There's a lawsuit challenging the policy. There are still substantive changes being made to PARP. This is not a policy that has cooled and crystalized in such a way that we can rely on it."
The case stems from the class action Urquidi vs. Los Angeles, filed by a pair of nonprofit public interest law firms last year on behalf of six people who had recently been jailed and couldn't afford to pay their pre-arraignment bail. The suit argued that it violated the California Constitution by treating arrestees with money differently from arrestees without money.
The city and county spent most of the early hearings in the case arguing that they were the wrong defendants and that the plaintiffs ought to be suing the state Legislature or the LA Courts. But Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff rejected those arguments, and has, for the most part, sided with the plaintiffs.
Monday was no different. Riff denied the motion to dissolve the injunction without prejudice, meaning that the defendants can make the same request at a later date.
"Too much is in a state of flux to modify the preliminary injunction today," said Riff. "What will be in the future? We will see. We will see what happens in Orange County and otherwise."
The bail issue has already crossed over from the courts to the political realm. Last week, during a debate held for challengers of LA County District Attorney George Gascon, candidates brought up zero bail a number of times, using it as a stick to beat Gascon with.
One candidate said the new zero bail policy was "unlawful." Another suggested that prosecutors should start to work around the new policy by filing more conspiracy charges, which may trigger cash bail.
"Bail is a constitutional right," said Eric Siddall, a prosecutor. "If you want to change bail, you have to change the state constitution." Gascon, he added, "didn’t even show up to contest the bail issue in court."
Follow @hillelaron
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
GOP sues Nevada over late mail-in ballots May 3, 2024
