Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190903_0006017.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 23:39:15
Document Index: 597542074

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1270', '§ 1270', '§ 1269', '§ 1270', '§ 1270', '§ 1269']

FindACase™ | Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco
On March 4, 2019, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment holding that Sheriff Vicki Hennessy's use of the San Francisco Felony and Misdemeanor Bail Schedule (“Bail Schedule”) to determine pretrial release violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution (“March 4 Order”). (Dkt. No. 314.)
Thereafter, and based upon the real parties-in-interest's request and considerations of federalism, the Court allowed those parties time to resolve the action with a global comprehensive solution. On Friday, August 30, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement as to the appropriate remedy to be imposed in this case except for two outstanding issues. (Dkt. No. 368.) Attaching a heavily-negotiated “Stipulated Final Judgment Remedying Constitutional Violations, ” the parties agreed, in summary, to an injunction prohibiting the use of the Bail Schedule, detailed modifications of the procedures for pretrial release as a plausible alternative to the current use of the Bail Schedule, and to monitoring for an effective period of eighteen (18) months. (Id.)
On Tuesday, September 03, 2019, the parties appeared before the Court regarding the settlement and the outstanding issues. First, plaintiffs argued that the Court should include the proposed provision which allows arrestees charged with offenses enumerated in California Penal Code section 1270.1(a) to have the right to submit an application under section 1269c seeking own recognizance release prior to arraignment. The Sheriff took no position on the issue. Second, the parties confirmed that an award of attorneys' fees and costs should come later after a motion and further negotiation.
Accordingly, to effectuate the March 4 Order, and based upon previous briefing, principles of federalism, good cause, and pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the Court Finds that the additional proposed procedures are appropriate as part of a plausible alternative to the constitutional violation and the Court Hereby Adjudges as follows:
(I) The San Francisco Sheriff's Department (hereafter “Sheriff”) is enjoined from using the Bail Schedule, or any form or derivative thereof that requires or has as its effect that the existence and duration of pre-arraignment detention is determined by an arrestee's ability to pay.
(II) For all arrestees booked on an offense not enumerated in California Penal Code § 1270.1(a), and who are arrested without a warrant and are not otherwise ineligible for pre-arraignment OR release under state law:
(A) The arrestee's PSA Report, along with all other portions of the OR Workup reasonably available to the OR Project, shall be submitted to the San Francisco Superior Court within eight (8) hours from the time of booking.[1]
(B) The Sheriff shall release the arrestee at eighteen (18) hours from the time of booking if: (1) the Superior Court has not rendered a decision on OR release at that time (which decision shall otherwise control) and (2) the PSA Report for the arrestee does not indicate “release not recommended.”
(C) Release pursuant to this Section shall treat as binding the recommendation of the PSA Report as to any conditions of release, and release procedures shall be carried out as if the release recommendations in the PSA Report had been adopted by the Superior Court. No. arrestee shall be entitled to release without signing an agreement to be bound by the conditions of release contained in the PSA Report's recommendation. An arrestee who is being released subject to recommended Assertive Case Management (ACM) procedures by the OR Project shall not be released from custody before completing any procedures necessary to implementing the release conditions.
(III) For all arrestees booked on an offense enumerated in California Penal Code § 1270.1(a), for whom pre-arraignment OR release is not available under current law, the provisions of Section II shall not apply.
(IV) The procedures for seeking alterations on release, as currently reflected in California Penal Code § 1269c, shall be modified as follows:
(A) For all arrestees booked on an offense not enumerated in California Penal Code § 1270.1(a), a peace officer who (1) has reasonable cause to believe that an arrestee may not appear at arraignment, or poses a threat to public safety, or (2) expects that specific information not yet provided will be delivered within the next twelve (12) hours and will probably provide reasonable cause to believe that an arrestee may not appear at arraignment, or poses a threat to public safety, shall prepare a declaration under penalty of perjury setting forth the facts and circumstances in support of his or her belief and file it with a magistrate or commissioner. Such a declaration may be filed at any point throughout the 18-hour period referenced in Section II, and will, without further judicial action, serve to extend the 18-hour period by an additional twelve (12) hours.
(B) For all arrestees booked on an offense not enumerated in California Penal Code § 1270.1(a), the arrestee or their attorney, friend or family member shall have the right to submit an application under California Penal Code § 1269c to the magistrate or commissioner seeking a swifter judicial decision than the automatic 18-hour release provision ...