"Pontificating is not legal analysis"

Here are two links on the failed lawsuit challenging the San Francisco bail system.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/82692495-story

Excerpts:

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two women who didn’t have money to make bail by Equal Justice Under Law— a Washington D.C. civil rights group. The suit claims poor San Francisco inmates are focused to sit in jail because they can’t afford bail, yet wealthy arrestees “purchase their freedom”.

However, the judge had some strong words for the plaintiff’s attorneys, saying they don’t seem to have a legal leg to stand on.

The judge made comments like, “I don’t see it here,” and “Pontificating is not legal analysis.”

The judge denied the case class-action status, essentially telling the plaintiffs to go back to the drawing board and to file a new lawsuit if they could back it up.

  

Sponsored Links

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2016/02/01/lawsuit-income-based-bail-system-hits-roadblock/

Previous posts:

Dec 29, 2015

San Francisco and California bail system unconstitutional?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3350394-155/lawsuits-seek-to-abolish-countys-bail

The same AP article in the link above was reprinted in several media outlets.

Excerpt:

Crystal Patterson didn't have the cash or assets to post $150,000 bail and get out of jail after her arrest for assault in October.

So Patterson, 39, promised to pay a bail bonds company $15,000 plus interest to put up the $150,000 bail for her, allowing to go home and care for her invalid grandmother.

The day after her release, the district attorney decided not to pursue charges. But Patterson still owes the bail bonds company. Criminal justice reformers and lawyers at a nonprofit Washington D.C. legal clinic say that is unconstitutionally unfair.

The lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Patterson, Rianna Buffin and other jail inmates who argue that San Francisco and California's bail system unconstitutionally treats poor and wealthy suspects differently.

I spoke with a couple bail bond companies. One person said that "it will bankrupt the cities and the County. This does not work. It was tried in Philadelphia and it cost them to be bankrupt to the tune of one billion."

Links to Philadelphia bail reform:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/560/Bail-Bail-reform-strategies.html
http://articles.philly.com/2015-07-15/news/64454460_1_prison-population-bail-reform-overcrowded-prisons

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/get-out-of-jail-free-criminals-on-the-street-without-posting-bail

EXCERPT:

Philadelphia : A Case Study of Public Policy Disaster  

About 40 years ago, Philadelphia assumed exclusive control over the city’s bail system by abolishing private bail services and implementing its own pretrial release service. The typical Philadelphia defendant is required to deposit only 10 percent of his total bail assigned by the judge and sign a statement agreeing that he will owe the remaining 90 percent for failure to appear on the court date.[2] According to a recent investigation by The Philadelphia Inquirer: 

For decades, Philadelphia court officials have presided over an ineffective bail system that allowed accused criminals to skip court virtually without consequence. Defendants routinely failed to appear in court and just as routinely, failed to pay the forfeited bail that was supposed to come due as a result.[3] 

Further, Philadelphia court officials admitted that no one made any effort to collect the money owed the city by those who had skipped their court dates.[4]  

What is the result of the city’s pretrial release services? Today, fugitive defendants owe the city more than $1 billion for failing to appear for their trials.[5] Further, there are more than 47,000 defendants wanted on bench warrants for failing to appear for trial.[6] 

The Private Sector Does it Better (Again)  

Private bail bond insurers provide important services to defendants and society at no cost to taxpayers. In exchange for a fee, private bond agents secure the release of defendants from jail while the accused await trail. Compared to other types of pretrial release, research indicates that private bond agents are more effective at ensuring defendants make their court appearances.[7] Individuals who obtain their release through private bond agents are 28 percent less likely to fail to appear before court than when freed on their own recognizance.[8] When defendants fail to appear before the courts and remain at large for more than a year, private bond agents seem to be more effective at catching these fugitives than public law enforcement. Those released through the assistance of private bond agents have a fugitive rate that is 53 percent lower than the fugitive rates of those released on their own recognizance.[9]

Dec 29, 2015

Humboldt County Courts more progressive than San Francisco on bail

Bill Damiano, Chief Probation Officer for Humboldt County responded via email about our local bail schedules.

Humboldt County has a court bail schedule set by the court and historically (based on data prepared for our Pretrial Assistance grant) about 17% of people booked into the jail are released on bail bond.  The remainder of releases are either on Own Recognizance (OR – about 64%, predominantly misdemeanors), a jail booking matrix OR (see description below, about 18%) or an ordered release on our Supervised Release Program (SRP – about 2.3%).

Persons who are booked into the jail  are screened for pretrial release on the Supervised Release Program based on risk to re-offend while pending adjudication in the present matter, or likelihood to FTA for court.  The jail staff does the initial assessment with the Ohio Risk Assessment System – Pretrial Assessment Tool (ORAS-PAT) on all offenders brought in, and they use the scores to help determine who gets released outright with a promise to appear (because they are lower risk, and therefore likely to show up to court and not commit a new offense while pending court).  There are some categories of offenses that are not eligible for consideration for release (“serious” and “violent” felonies as defined by the Penal Code, for instance). 

The tool forms the basis for the jail booking matrix, guiding decision-making regarding booking someone into custody depending upon the current/recent capacity of the jail and their assessed risk to re-offend or FTA.  Lower risk offenders are screened out at booking.  In order to maintain control of the jail population and keep detainees and staff safe, as the jail gets closer to capacity (around 80% and 90%), the score eligible for consideration of matrix OR release increases.  Normally a score of 3 or less in released OR with a promise to appear.  At 90% capacity, a score of 5 or less will be considered.  The tool always allows for an override by a supervisor, with proper justification.  

Bottom line:  Eligibility for release on OR, pursuant to the jail booking matrix, or the SRP program is not based on ability to pay, having a home or a job.  In fact, we have had quite a number of individuals with no stable residence or job ordered by the court into the SRP program (about 35% of those ordered into the program, on average).