Lawsuit Challenging Riverside County’s Bail Processes Moves Forward
Media contacts:
Nicole Funaro | Public Justice | nfunaro@publicjustice.net
Madhvi Venkatraman | Civil Rights Corps | media@civilrightscorps.org
California Superior Court overruled the County Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint
Riverside County, CA — On Oct. 1, a judge denied two demurrers to a complaint challenging the county’s cash-based jailing of individuals between their arrest and first court hearing, as well as its unnecessary delay of that hearing. The court ruled that the arguments raised by defendants Riverside County Superior Court, County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chad Bianco were without merit and that each and every one of the plaintiffs’ claims against them could proceed. The court’s opinion paves the way for a hearing to be held on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Filed in May, Sandoval v. Riverside County alleges that individuals — who have not been convicted of any crimes, are presumed innocent, and are not yet represented by counsel — are confined in Riverside County 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 money to pay for their freedom. The case was brought by individuals detained in Riverside County jails and local faith leaders.
The defendants’ demurrers to the complaint were heard on Sept. 25. The court issued an opinion on Oct. 1 that specifically noted that the County Defendants had failed to successfully counter Plaintiffs’ allegation that “the policy of conditioning arrestees’ pre-arraignment liberty on the payment of cash bail is not necessary to advancing any compelling interest, and that less restrictive alternatives that are at least equally effective in promoting public safety and court appearances exist.”
The court also said that the County Defendants’ demurrer failed because they failed to rebut the plaintiffs’ arguments that California law and the state and federal due process clauses are violated when arraignments are unnecessarily delayed. Likewise, the court held that the County Defendants failed to refute Plaintiffs’ assertion that they have “a fundamental right to pretrial bodily liberty” and that the delays to their first court hearing are “unnecessary and are not the least restrictive means available to the government to secure court attendance or ensure public safety.”
Courts have repeatedly held that California trial courts’ practice of imposing pre-arraignment cash bail is 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 was almost identical to Riverside County’s, was unconstitutional. Yet, the Riverside County defendants continue to violate the Constitution and hold individuals in the second-deadliest jail system in the country solely because they cannot afford to pay money bail.
The judge further ruled that Riverside County Superior Court is also a proper defendant in the case, and that all claims against it can proceed.
“Money should never be the reason a person is jailed, and no one should be confined, away from their families, jobs, and communities, for several days just because government officials don’t make the effort to take them to court. Like most of our clients, many people are ordered released the moment a judge finally assesses their case at a hearing, but by then jobs are lost, children have suffered traumatic family separation, and everyone is made less safe,” said Salil Dudani, senior attorney at Civil Rights Corps. “Our clients’ goal is to put an end to these completely unnecessary jailing practices. We are glad they will get their day in court.”
“After Urquidi and multiple other cases, there is no doubt that in California the indiscriminate use of pre-arraignment money bail is unconstitutional,” said Brian Hardingham, a senior attorney with Public Justice’s Debtors’ Prison Project. “This opinion both reiterates that clear legal conclusion and confirms that courts and jailers must ensure that arraignments proceed without unnecessary delay. We urge both the defendants in this case and other California courts and jailers with identical practices to make the changes needed to follow the law. Failing that, we will continue to litigate the issue both here and in other courts throughout the state.”
“The law could not be more clear that wealth-based imprisonment is unconstitutional,” said Brian Olney, a partner with civil rights firm Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP. “The Defendants’ decision to continue defending this awful practice is truly unconscionable.”
Plaintiffs are represented by Public Justice, Civil Rights Corps, Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Prison Law Office, and Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP.
###
Civil Rights Corps challenges systemic injustice in the U.S. legal system. Through innovative civil rights litigation, advocacy, and public education, we aim to re-sensitize the legal system and our culture to the injustice and brutality that characterizes the contemporary legal system. Our work is guided by a commitment to the people and communities harmed by policing, surveillance, incarceration, discrimination, and the criminalization of poverty. civilrightscorps.org
Public Justice takes on the biggest systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We connect high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to fight these abusive and discriminatory systems and win social and economic justice. For more information, visit www.publicjustice.net.
Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai, LLP is one of the most successful civil rights firms in the country. HSRD pursues justice through individual and class action lawsuits, legal services, education, and community-based efforts.