Skip to navigation
Skip to content
Sandoval v. Riverside
What’s at stake: Whether the court, sheriff, and county can continue to keep people locked in jail in Riverside County based on their nonpayment of bail with no consideration of their ability to pay, a practice multiple other courts in California have already ruled unconstitutional. And whether people arrested in Riverside County must wait up to five days to even see a judge in their case, far longer than the one- or two-day limits imposed in many other states.
Summary: When a person is arrested, under the law they are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. 1 in 3 California arrests never lead to a conviction. Even when a person is innocent, they are jailed after arrest if they can’t pay cash bail. Police set a person’s bail amount based only on the charges they decide on at arrest and before a prosecutor or judge has considered the case. In 2024, 88% of people in Riverside’s jails were pretrial, meaning they have yet to be convicted of any of the charges against them . Even if the case is dropped when a prosecutor first considers it, or a judge reduces or eliminates bail at the first hearing, the person has already been jailed for days, often with harsh consequences for their families and job security.
People detained in Riverside County jails filed this lawsuit challenging Riverside County’s cash-based jailing of individuals between their arrest and first court hearing, as well as the unnecessary delay of that hearing. Rabbi David Lazar and Reverend Jane Quandt chose to join this lawsuit because they view cash-based jailing as unjust.
The case alleges that every day in Riverside County, individuals—who have not been convicted of any crimes, are presumed innocent, and are not yet represented by counsel—are confined in Riverside jails, based solely on their inability to pay arbitrary, pre-set bail amounts. People who cannot pay the pre-set bail amounts remain in jail until their first court hearing, which for no good reason often does not occur until four or five days after their arrest. These individuals are not detained because they have been determined to be too dangerous to release. They simply do not have the resources to pay for their freedom. Courts in California have repeatedly found this practice patently unconstitutional. For example, in a similar lawsuit in Los Angeles (Urquidi v. City of Los Angeles), a judge ruled that LA’s bail schedule system, which is almost identical to Riverside County’s, was unconstitutional. Yet, the Riverside County defendants in this case continue to violate the Constitution and hold individuals in the second-deadliest jail system in the country solely because they cannot afford to pay bail.
Cash-based bail policies like those in Riverside County are not simply unconstitutional. They also inflict severe and lasting harm on the individuals detained, their families, and their communities. Families are separated. Jailed individuals often lose their jobs and housing. Importantly, multiple scientific studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, cash-based bail policies actually increase, rather than decrease, crime and do not increase the likelihood that individuals will appear in court for further hearings. In fact, in Urquidi, Judge Riff noted that all evidence pointed to pretrial detention itself being “criminogenic.” Multiple jurisdictions in California and other states have chosen to follow the law and have implemented pretrial release programs that do not depend on individuals’ ability to pay. These programs have proven to be much more effective than cash-based bail policies in improving public safety and appearance rates.
Core legal question: Is it constitutional for jails to detain people who have not been convicted of any crimes—and are presumed innocent and not yet represented by counsel—based solely on their inability to pay pre-set bail amounts, and without any determination by a judge of their flight risk or potential danger to the community? Further, is it constitutional to detain these people for up to five or even six days before their first court hearing?