OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — People awaiting trial who want to avoid jail time before getting to court in San Francisco can — for now — bypass the sheriff's rules on monitoring people awaiting trial, after a federal judge found Tuesday the rules may “impermissibly” track them and share their location data.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, in a 42-page order, granted a preliminary injunction that stops San Francisco’s sheriff from enforcing two rules imposed upon people in pretrial release in San Francisco — which the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California argues are unconstitutional — that dictate how the sheriff's office monitors and shares the data of those who have been released pending trial but remain under electronic monitoring.
The 2022 class action was brought by a now-certified class of individuals under pretrial release, along with nonprofit Community Resource Initiative, against the city and county, and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto — whose office handles electronic monitoring of criminal defendants on pretrial release. Utilizing electronic monitors managed by Sentinel Offender Services, an Anaheim, California-based criminal services company, the sheriff allows releasees to return to their homes rather than being forced to wait in jail pending trial.
The plaintiffs say that the sheriff's office exceeded its authority by imposing conditions that violate the United States and California State Constitutions.
Tigar, in Tuesday's order, enjoined San Francisco County from imposing and enforcing the sheriff’s four-way search condition and a data sharing provision. The judge said that the sheriff’s use of sensitive location data for unrelated purposes, such as “to investigate and solve crimes,” could violate plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of privacy. The plaintiffs may succeed in claiming that data sharing and retention raise similar constitutional concerns, he said.
"The fact of plaintiffs’ consent by itself is insufficient to overcome a lack of an individualized judicial finding that the challenged conditions are necessary," he wrote. "Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the sheriff imposed intrusive search and data sharing conditions without plaintiffs’ voluntary and knowing consent."
The judge also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss but will remand to state court claims from the nonprofit and a taxpaying individual who claim that the county illegally spent funds on the program rules.
Tigar disagreed with the sheriff’s claim that searches under the program rules are reasonable because “they further government and public interests." He wrote that the assumption that probationers are more likely to commit crimes doesn't apply to the plaintiffs in this case, who are on pretrial release and have not yet be presumed to be guilty.
The judge said that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine “'limits the government’s ability to extract waivers of rights as a condition of benefits' to stem the erosion of constitutional protections.” He said evidence showed the sheriff “impermissibly" imposed "intrusive conditions of release” upon the class members, without a neutral decision-maker doing individual assessments.
“Not only do defendants likely lack the authority to set pretrial release conditions beyond those ordered by the court, but the record also suggests that defendants’ process disabled the Superior Court from making individualized determinations of the appropriate conditions of release,” Tigar said.
He added, "plaintiffs have submitted evidence that at least some judges on the Superior Court understand that they can only place an individual on monitoring if that individual accepts the current default search condition contained on the form court order and in the revised program rules. This evidence increases the likelihood that plaintiffs will be able to show that defendants exercise an impermissible degree of control over the judicial function of setting conditions of pretrial release.”
The judge said the injunction will remain in effect until he issues a new order.
The sheriff’s office has two weeks within which to stop enforcing the rules, and must file a report under oath explaining how officials have complied with the preliminary injunction in 35 days.
Attorneys for San Francisco said in a statement Tuesday that the plaintiffs agreed to the conditions of the sheriff's pretrial release program before filing the lawsuit.
“The superior court and sheriff's office also made updates to forms regarding pretrial electronic monitoring orders, admonitions and program rules that clarified that the superior court intended to put in place the conditions challenged by plaintiffs. We are disappointed by the court’s ruling and will assess potential next steps accordingly," the city attorney's office said.
Avi Frey, deputy director of the ACLU of Northern California's criminal justice program, said Tigar's order spells out how the sheriff "gravely overstepped" its role in running the county’s pretrial electronic monitoring program.
"As of today, the sheriff must recognize that release on electronic monitoring is not an invitation for boundless surveillance, and that people released on electronic monitoring who have not been convicted of a crime retain a constitutional right to privacy," Frey said.
In February 2023, the judge heard the ACLU’s arguments contesting how releasees must consent to the rules which govern the terms of their release. Electronic monitors continuously relay a releasee’s GPS information for the entire time they must wear them. This information is then stored on Sentinel’s servers and can be shared with any interested law enforcement agencies, according to the ACLU.
The agreement between the sheriff’s office and Sentinel “does not address what happens to an EM participant’s data once their participation in the program has ceased,” the ACLU said.
Follow @nhanson_reports
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.
