In case you haven't been paying attention, there is now an official due process right to affordable bail. This stems from Kenneth Humphrey's California Supreme Court case, which many likely already know. And while the official ruling came in some seven months ago, the specific subject matter is still of grave importance for the bail industry.
To give you a little bit of background: On March 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court agreed with Humphrey, who had previously petitioned that he was entitled to a new bail hearing under the common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.
It was during Humphrey’s original trial that the judge in the case set bail at $350,000 without taking into question whether the defendant could actually pay the amount. This led to Humphrey filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that “requiring money bail as a condition of release at an amount he could not pay was the functional equivalent of a pretrial detention order.”
Humphrey requested either one of two things to happen: immediate release or a new bail hearing.
The court of appeals eventually reversed the bail order because it was never determined if Humphrey could pay the amount set by the judge. This led the superior court to conduct a new bail hearing, and it was later ordered Humphrey be released on various non-financial conditions.
The California Supreme Court then affirmed the following:
- Holding where a financial condition is necessary, the court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay the stated amount of bail and may not detain the defendant solely because he or she lacks the resources to post bail
- Humphrey was entitled to a new bail hearing
While the ruling comes as good news, it’s been a long-awaited decision in In re: Humphrey. Prior to the official ruling, this case pushed two key questions regarding bail to the forefront of discussion:
- Whether cash bail is unconstitutional
- How to resolve two apparently conflicting California constitutional provisions concerning bail
The court held that pretrial detention based solely on a person’s inability to pay is unconstitutional because liberty is the norm in the criminal justice system, meaning there is a fundamental right to bail.
It is now clear that when setting bail, courts must consider the defendant’s individual circumstances and financial situation (i.e. is the set bail affordable to the defendant?).
It’s important to note that this is a landmark decision from the California Supreme Court, and it will change the way trial courts handle bail moving forward.
Specifically, the unanimous Supreme Court ruled, “The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.”
However, the court also ruled that there would be "rare conditions" where someone would be held in custody on a no-bail status.
Would you like to share your comments or concerns regarding this information with your local state representatives? They are interested in getting your take on this milestone ruling and what they predict for the future for the bail industry.
