In a 64-page order on Tuesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lawrence P. Riff granted a preliminary injunction sought by a proposed class of individuals who were arrested without warrants last year and subsequently detained at Los Angeles-area jails for low-level crimes and misdemeanors, including vandalism and criminal threats.
The proposed class members include those experiencing homelessness, facing financial challenges and who ultimately couldn't afford to post bail following their arrests. The judge's preliminary injunction order requires Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles Police Department officials to follow a policy enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce jail overcrowding that doesn't require arrestees booked for nonviolent offenses to post cash bail before they are released.
"The plaintiffs have shown that these defendants' conduct in enforcing the secured money bail schedules against poor people who are detained in jail solely for the reason of their poverty is a clear, pervasive and serious constitutional violation," Tuesday's order stated. "The parties estimate they will be ready for a trial on the merits in about 12 months. Between now and then, tens of thousands of persons will be arrested by the LASD and LAPD and jailed under the extant bail schedules solely because they are too poor to pay the scheduled money bail."
The scope of the preliminary injunction sought to block Los Angeles city and county and their respective law enforcement agencies from applying and enforcing the superior court's 2022 felony bail schedule pre-arraignment, as well as the 2022 bail schedule that imposed money bail for infractions and misdemeanors, which the plaintiffs say negatively affect those who can't pay it.
The preliminary injunction doesn't apply to those arrested for capital offenses, violent crimes or who are ineligible for bail, have an open and unresolved criminal case, or are the subject of an arrest warrant.
The judge's order granting the preliminary injunction heavily cited the plaintiffs' "vast amount of evidence, via four well-qualified expert witnesses and more than a dozen academic studies," which he said "decisively shows" that the current money bail system doesn't reduce incidences of arrestees committing new criminal activity or failing to appear in court.
"Indeed, on this substantial record, it would be an abuse of the court's discretion not to enter a [preliminary injunction]," Judge Riff wrote.
Tuesday's preliminary injunction is the latest in a putative class action filed by six individuals in November 2022 against Los Angeles city and county, its respective law enforcement agencies and California Attorney General Rob Bonta challenging the constitutionality of the current secured money bail system. The plaintiffs were arrested for crimes including vandalism, receiving stolen property, attempted robbery or were booked on suspicion of recklessly evading police while driving.
All were detained in area jails for at least five days before making a first appearance in court for a bail hearing. The plaintiffs say they lost out on job opportunities, interviews and experienced other challenges while held in custody.
The proposed class is led by Phillip Urquidi, who was living in a truck with his girlfriend and working at a temp agency for $500 a week when he was arrested last November. Urquidi was booked for vandalism and held on $20,000 bail that he couldn't afford. He was released on his own recognizance after being jailed for five days.
The case doesn't involve a judicial determination of the detainees' release conditions on bail, and only involves the amount of time between their arrest and first appearance in court. The case is also the first one in California to consider, on the merits, the issuance of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a cash bail schedule during pre-arraignment.
The proposed class consists of those who are or will be detained pursuant to the bail schedules solely based on their inability to afford bail, and excludes those who are detained for reasons other than their inability to post bail.
Tuesday's order relied on plaintiffs' experts, which included public defenders, private attorneys and professors specializing in research on criminal justice reform and pretrial detention, many of whom largely testified that secured money bail results in higher rates of pretrial detention and is actually counterproductive to the government's compelling interest to reduce crime and defendants failing to appear for court hearings.
Some experts also testified that secured money bail could negatively affect the outcome of an arrestee's case as they're more likely to plead guilty, be convicted or less likely to get charges reduced. Those detained pretrial are also more likely to be charged with new offenses than those who are released, experts said.
The experts also noted that there are alternatives to money bail like risk assessment tools to measure an arrestee's potential for committing new crimes or failing to appear in court. Furthermore, the current bail system presents innumerable challenges to detainees, including lost job opportunities, exposure to violence, as well as a lack of medical care, sufficient food and nutrition, and proper hygiene, the experts said.
"Their evidence has demonstrated that it is highly likely that the opposite is true: secured money bail regimes are associated with increased crime and increased [failures to appear] as compared with unsecured bail or release on non-financial conditions," Judge Riff said. "What's more, the evidence demonstrates that secured money bail, as now utilized in Los Angeles County, is itself 'criminogenic' — that is, secured money bail causes more crime than would be the case were the money bail schedules no longer enforced."
Furthermore, the plaintiffs also showed they're likely to succeed on the merits of their case and are likely to show that their pre-arraignment detention deprives them of their fundamental right to pretrial liberty in violation of the due process clauses under the U.S. and California constitutions, Judge Riff wrote.
He also pointed out that many California public officials, including Los Angeles County's Probation Department and Board of Supervisors have expressed "profound doubts" about the constitutionality and fairness of the pretrial money bail system that operates to keep arrestees in custody simply because they can't pay the bail amount.
"It is pervasive in that each year it likely affects tens of thousands of impoverished persons detained solely because they are poor," the order stated. "Such harm warrants the court's entering a PI even though the PI changes the status quo. The likely harm to the putative plaintiff class in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief substantially outweighs any harm these defendants would face from the issuance of a preliminary injunction."
A hearing has been set for July 10.
In a statement, Brad D. Brian of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, who along with Salil Dudani of the Civil Rights Corps represents the plaintiffs, said that while the case is ongoing, the plaintiffs are pleased with the court's ruling, which has an immediate effect on most individuals arrested in Los Angeles County.
"We are confident that Los Angeles County bail policies are unconstitutional and look forward to proving that at trial," Brian said.
A representative for Los Angeles County said in a statement, "Los Angeles County is hopeful that the court's ruling will be beneficial in our urgent efforts to reduce the jail population. It is worth noting that the state, its Judicial Council and the court system set the bail schedule, and the county's authority is limited solely to implementing that schedule, as the court's order in the Urquidi case acknowledged. The county did not defend the constitutionality of the current system, and the Board of Supervisors is focused on pretrial reforms that would create a fairer system and lower the jail population. The Sheriff's Department is working to implement the court's ruling by May 24."
A spokesperson for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office said the office does not comment on pending litigation.
Los Angeles County and the L.A. Sheriff's Department is represented by James A. Bowman, Dimitri D. Portnoi, Kelsey A. Chandrasoma and Kyle M. Grossman of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
The city of Los Angeles and the LAPD are represented by Hydee Feldstein Soto, Scott Marcus and Gabriel S. Dermer of the City Attorney's Office.
The proposed class is represented by Brad D. Brian, Rohit K. Singla, Rowley J. Rice, Tiana S. Baheri, Taylor L. Benninger and Victoria A. Degtyareva of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Alec Karakatsanis, Salil H. Dudani and Jeffrey Stein of Civil Rights Corps, Dan Stormer and Brian Olney of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, Leslie A. Bailey and Brian Hardingham of Public Justice, and Paul L. Hoffman and John C. Washington of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.
The case is Phillip Urquidi et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., case number 22STCP04044, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County.
--Editing by Kristen Becker.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
