LAPD chief, sheriff testify against zero bail

LOS ANGELES (CN) — Los Angeles Police Chief Michael Moore and LA County Sheriff Robert Luna, the top two law enforcement officials in LA, both appeared in a downtown courtroom Monday to testify against "zero bail," a policy of releasing arrestees before arraignment without forcing them to pay cash bail.

That policy, applied to to non-violent, low-level offenses, was put in place during the first year of the Covid pandemic and reinstated in May, thanks to a preliminary injunction issued by a superior court judge.

"I do believe that bail acts as a general deterrence," Moore testified. "It creates consequences. You face a risk of being incarcerated as a punishment." He said he did not agree, as the plaintiffs in the case have argued, that cash bail creates a "two-tier system."

He added that when the general public sees arrestees immediately released without being taken into custody, "it has the potential of significantly undermining the public’s trust. And anything that does that give me significant concern." He later elaborated: "People are saying to the police, 'Why am I going to call you?'"

A soft-spoken Sheriff Robert Luna's testimony was much in the same vein. "Seeing people released immediately negatively impacts the credibility of our justice system," said Luna, who unseated the bombastic Alex Villanueva in November 2022.

The testimony came as part of a hearing in a class action seeking to end the use of prearraignment cash bail in LA, brought by recent arrestees who couldn't afford to pay and were therefore held an additional three to five days. That extra jail time, the plaintiffs have argued, led to lost jobs, missed job interviews and discontinued psychiatric medication. They argue cash bail is "criminogenic" — it increases the likelihood that someone will reoffend.

Both Luna and More disagreed. The sheriff said that in the roughly 10 weeks since zero bail was reinstated by the court, his department has arrested 1,573 people, 226 of which were released and were then arrested again for for a different crime — a 14.3% recidivism rate.

"That’s concerning," Luna said, adding: "There’s individuals here that have been released on zero bail then turned around and committed murder, in the last several weeks."

Luna acknowledged he did not know the recidivism rate for people who are able to afford bail, or indeed for individuals who spend the extra three to five days in jail prior to arraignment and are then released by a judge.

After the hearing, Moore told reporters that 76 people released on zero bail have been arrested again for committing another crime since the injunction was issued in May. He singled out a 4% uptick in car theft in the last 10 weeks as one "crude measure" of the effect zero bail has had.

"The criminal element is watching this very closely to understand what the consequences will be for them," Moore said.

LA County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff had "invited" both Luna and Moore to testify multiple times in the hearing over the preliminary injunction, which stretched out over weeks. The lawyers for both the city and the county indicated that the chief and sheriff were open to testifying if they were ordered to, but they never took the judge up on his invitation until today — perhaps, as Luna suggested after the hearing, because of the legal strategy adopted by the city and county's lawyers, who spent most of the hearing arguing that they shouldn't be defendants in the case, rather than sticking up for the merits of cash bail.

Chief Moore said that he had been "disappointed" by the "characterizations" in the judge's injunction order, and that he wanted to "make sure the record is clear."

Nonetheless, it was difficult to see how the top officials' testimony, dramatic though it was, fit in with the rest of the case, since the preliminary injunction (or PI) is already in place. When Chief Moore tried bringing up studies showing that zero bail leads to more crime, the plaintiffs objected and the judge agreed.

"What the chief is proposing to do is tell me information that I would have received during the PI hearing," Judge Riff said. "If he had studies about why this was a bad idea, that was the time."

Judge Riff's injunction effectively reverted the city and county of Los Angeles back to its Covid-era policy of releasing nonviolent, low-level offenders prior to arraignment — the first time arrestees see a judge and, in many cases, the first time they say a lawyer. At that point, a judge sets bail (or in some cases, resets bail), but in doing so must take into account the arrestee's ability to pay due to a 2021 California Supreme Court ruling. The injunction made an exception for offenders who are already out on bail or have open arrest warrants. Riff also ordered the parties, including the plaintiffs, city, county and state attorney general, to negotiate a new system of determining which arrestees are detained and which are released, prior to arrangement.

But last month, those negotiations were upended when the Los Angeles Superior Courts announced a new prearraignment bail system, one largely in line with Riff's preliminary injunction, set to go into effect on Oct. 1.

The city and the county argued the new rules render the lawsuit moot. On Monday, the plaintiffs said that certain differences between the preliminary injunction and the new bail schedule remain. They are also seeking to add two categories of offenses to the injunction: felony vandalism and driving under the influence. In his testimony, Moore said he opposed such an idea.

"This last year, 19 people were killed by DUIs in the city," Chief Moore said. "So I do not understand the expansion, adding that."

The parties will reconvene on Wednesday and attempt to hash out the future of prearraignment detention in LA. Judge Riff told both sides that he wants to hear arguments on both sides how the new bail schedule issued by the courts effects his preliminary injunction and what, if any, alterations should be made with the order so that it complies with court's new policy.

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.

Email *

Submit