An Orange County judge has rejected a lawsuit from 29 cities seeking to end the controversial zero-bail policy in the neighboring Los Angeles County court system.
In his ruling, Superior Court Judge William Claster concluded that the cities did not have sufficient evidence to show the L.A. County Superior Court failed to adequately consider the potential risks to victims and public safety when developing the policy. The cities’ argument that criminals would be emboldened to commit more crimes without a cash bail deterrent currently amounts “to speculation as to what might occur,” he wrote.
“It’s one thing to say the LASC made the ‘wrong’ policy decision, it’s another thing to say that it did not follow the law,” Claster wrote.
During a two-hour hearing Monday, Dec. 11, Claster repeatedly expressed concerns about the lawsuit, questioning whether he has the right to usurp the decision-making authority of judges on the Los Angeles Judicial Council who established the zero-bail policy.
“It would be one county Superior Court trying to tell another Superior Court what to do,” he said.
Cities can amend complaint
Claster ultimately denied the cities’ request for a preliminary injunction, but permitted them to amend and resubmit their complaint by Jan. 31.
The L.A. County cities signed onto the lawsuit included Whittier, Torrance, West Covina, Beverly Hills, Baldwin Park and Santa Monica. The group, under the title of the Coalition of Cities to End No-Cash Bail, issued a statement following the decision, saying they could file a new challenge with “additional evidence of the harmful impacts” of zero bail.
“This sweeping program was implemented too quickly without adequate research, or enough input from the communities it affects,” the statement reads. “We believe we can do better. As our coalition prepares additional data for the court, city leaders will continue to prioritize public safety in advocating for smart reforms to the justice system.”
New policy started in October
Los Angeles County implemented its new bail schedule, referred to as the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocol, or PARP, in October.
The protocol, commonly described as zero bail or no-cash bail, eliminates the financial requirements for release from custody prior to arraignment for all but the most serious of offenses. Police officers instead are instructed to “cite and release” or “book and release” suspects for a majority of misdemeanors and some felonies. Serious and violent crimes, such as murder, kidnapping, robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, are not eligible and still retain previous bail amounts.
David Slayton, executive officer of the L.A. County Superior Court system, defended the policy in a statement following Claster’s ruling. He pointed to a report released by the courts showing that only about 1.5% of those released through the zero-bail policy in the first weeks committed a second crime.
“Under the previous money bail system, a high-risk arrestee could purchase their freedom, while a low-risk arrestee without similar financial resources would remain in jail,” Slayton stated. “As a reminder, the traditional money bail system, which does not consider an individual’s risk to public and victim safety and likelihood of returning to court, still applies to serious and violent felonies such as murder, rape and robbery.”
‘Obligation to protect the public’
Kimberly Hall Barlow, an attorney for the cities suing to block the policy, argued during Monday’s hearing in Santa Ana that the L.A. County Superior Court failed to consider the impacts zero bail will have on public safety before implementing the policy.
“They had an obligation to protect the public,” she told Claster. “And they failed to do that. At a minimum, the court should say, you should revisit this with public safety as the primary issue.”
However, Michael Fox, a San Francisco attorney representing Los Angeles Superior Court, strongly disagreed in his argument, saying the policy contains built-in safeguards to protect the public, including giving law enforcement officers the ability to refer criminal cases to magistrates if they view them as serious enough to warrant bail.
Barlow, however, said that system presents a dilemma for officers who must determine whether those arrested should go free or be booked into jail.
Previous court rulings
Los Angeles County’s support for zero bail came in the wake of two pivotal court cases.
In 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to hold someone solely because of their inability to pay bail. Then, six plaintiffs challenged the use of cash bail locally through a 2022 class-action lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department. A Superior Court judge in that case granted a preliminary injunction in May requiring the county to revert to the zero-bail policy in place during the pandemic until the case goes to trial.
Judge Claster acknowledged the prior injunction in his ruling, saying the cities’ request for intervention is effectively a “backdoor challenge” to that case. Claster wrote that if he were to prevent L.A. County from using the prearraignment release protocol, there would be two conflicting injunctions and L.A. County would need to violate one or the other. State law requires the county to adopt a “uniform countywide schedule of bail,” and it cannot put zero bail into place for one city, but not the others, he wrote.
The 29 cities should have intervened in the class-action lawsuit and appealed that, rather than filing the new lawsuit, Claster said.
In his ruling, Claster also denied an “alternative request” asking the court to modify L.A. County’s bail amounts on a “crime-by-crime basis.” The court could not make such a judgment call and the cities did not “articulate a basis for doing so other than their view that it will enhance public safety,” Claster said.
“Again, while this court recognizes that there is a legitimate debate as to the benefits/downsides of PARP, the policy aspects of that debate are not for this court to decide,” Claster wrote.
Whittier Mayor Joe Vinatieri, who attended the hearing, said the zero-bail policy is flawed because city officials throughout the county were not involved in developing and implementing it.
“It’s not ready for prime time,” he said. “All we’re trying to do is to say, stop on this thing. Let’s sit down with law enforcement in the cities, and talk about each one of these, and let’s come to some kind of consensus. Let’s sit down and put our heads together and come up with something that seems to work for everyone.”
In his statement, Slayton, the L.A. County Superior Court’s executive officer, said the court “continues to welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with justice partners, including law enforcement and municipal government, to ensure the individualized risk-based determinations provided by the PARPs continue to protect public and victim safety while ensuring that arrestees who pose little risk do not sit behind bars simply because they cannot afford to pay money bail.”