504 S.W.3d 716
Mo.2016Background
- Defendant Faustino Lopez-Matias arrested (Sept. 6, 2016) for possession/use of a forged Social Security card (class C felony) and held without bail per his arrest warrant.
- Defense moved (Sept. 9) for release on recognizance or reasonable conditions under §544.455 and Rule 33.01; trial court denied the motion on Sept. 13 based solely on §544.470.2.
- §544.470.2 creates a presumption that release will not reasonably assure appearance if the judge reasonably believes the person is an alien unlawfully present, and bars consideration of release conditions until the person proves lawful presence.
- Lopez-Matias petitioned this Court under Rule 33.09, arguing §544.470.2 violates Article I, §20 of the Missouri Constitution (bail for "all persons"). He conceded he had not proved lawful presence.
- The State conceded conflict between §544.470.2 and Article I, §20, but argued §32 (public-safety exception) justified the statute; the Court rejected that sweeping statutory exception.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri held §544.470.2 unconstitutional because it denies individualized bail determinations guaranteed by Article I, §20 (and is not salvaged by Article I, §32).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lopez-Matias) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §544.470.2 (automatic presumption denying release until proof of lawful presence) violates Art. I, §20 (bail for "all persons") | §544.470.2 is permissible because Art. I, §32 allows denying bail or imposing conditions when defendant poses danger to community, and unlawful presence can justify class-based denial | §544.470.2 violates Art. I, §20 by categorically denying individualized bail consideration to a class of persons unable to prove lawful presence; statute prevents required case-by-case inquiry under §544.455/Rule 33.01 | Court held §544.470.2 unconstitutional: it impermissibly denies individualized bail determinations guaranteed by Art. I, §20 and cannot be justified as a blanket application of Art. I, §32; remanded for individualized bail consideration under chapter 544 and Rule 33 (court may consider unlawful-presence among other factors) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2012) (statutory presumptions and constitutional analysis standard)
- State v. Pribble, 285 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. banc 2009) (statute presumed constitutional; high burden to declare unconstitutional)
- Ex parte Burgess, 274 S.W. 423 (Mo. banc 1925) (historical recognition of bail right in Missouri)
- State v. Jackson, 384 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. banc 2012) (purpose of bail is to reasonably assure appearance; courts have discretion to set conditions)
- State ex rel. Corella v. Miles, 262 S.W. 364 (Mo. banc 1924) (bond’s only purpose is to secure appearance)