A Federal Judge in California has granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that Sacramento County’s Bail Schedule and enforcement of Penal Code section 1269b were unconstitutional. Equal Justice Under Law brought the suit on behalf of an indigent man who was arrested for burglary. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was taken to jail and because he could not afford to pay $10,000 bail or 10% of that bail to a bondsman he was held until his first court date. Bail in Sacramento County is set according to a bail schedule, which is reviewed and adopted by judges each year.
Under California Penal Code section 1269b a defendant in most cases is entitled to be released on bail while awaiting trial. The bail amount is set by a judge or according to a fixed bail schedule. Defendants are entitled to a bail review hearing and may petition to be released on their own recognizance or have their bail lowered. Judges take into consideration the seriousness of the offense as well as flight risk and potential public safety issues.
Upon review of the complaint, United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the County’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s claim that the “Bail Law” and reliance on a “Bail Schedule” violated the Constitution. More specifically, the Judge found that the plaintiff’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause were not violated stating that “(t)he state’s interest in ensuring criminal defendant’s appear for trial dates is a legitimate one, and detaining individuals before their arraignment is rationally related to that legitimate interest.” (Case No. 2:16-cv-00185-TLN-KJN)
In the lengthy decision, the court found that the plaintiff’s failed to show that the Bail Law was punitive in nature or whether the imposed restrictions were excessive in relation to a legitimate regulatory purpose as required by the two-prong test established in Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-539).