In re Humphrey
19 Cal. App. 5th 1006
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Kenneth Humphrey, a 63‑year‑old with treatment history, was charged with first‑degree robbery and related counts; bail was set by the magistrate at $600,000 per the county bail schedule and later reduced to $350,000.
- Humphrey claimed indigency and requested OR release or placement in a residential treatment program; counsel informed the court Humphrey could not afford the bail amounts.
- The prosecutor relied on a Pretrial Services/Public Safety Assessment recommendation and the bail schedule; the prosecutor did not seek formal pretrial detention under Cal. Const. art. I, §12.
- The trial court imposed bail and ordered treatment as a condition of release, despite setting bail at an amount the record indicated Humphrey could not pay.
- Humphrey petitioned for habeas corpus arguing the court failed to inquire into ability to pay or consider nonmonetary alternatives, violating Due Process and Equal Protection; the Attorney General ultimately agreed relief was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court must inquire into an arrestee's ability to pay before setting money bail that will result in pretrial detention | Humphrey: court must determine ability to pay; cannot detain solely due to indigency | Initially AG: public‑safety provision permits focus on safety without required inquiry; later AG conceded relief warranted | Court held trial court erred; must inquire into ability to pay and consider alternatives before imposing money bail that functions as detention |
| Whether courts must consider less‑restrictive nonmonetary conditions before imposing unaffordable money bail | Humphrey: court must explore alternatives (supervision, treatment, unsecured bond, electronic monitoring) before detaining by bail amount | AG/prosecutor: emphasis on public safety may justify high money bail per §28 public‑safety bail | Court held less‑restrictive alternatives must be considered; if money bail exceeds ability to pay, detention requires findings that no less‑restrictive option suffices |
| Standard and procedural safeguards when detention follows from unaffordable bail | Humphrey: if detention results, state must meet heightened due process (clear and convincing evidence, individualized findings) | Prosecutor: relied on bail schedule and PSA without robust individualized findings | Court held that when unaffordable bail equates to detention, the state must satisfy Salerno‑type safeguards and make on‑the‑record findings by clear and convincing evidence that no alternatives suffice |
| Interaction of Cal. Const. art. I §12 (right to bail) and §28 (victim/public safety) | Humphrey: §12 maintains strong bail protections; §28 does not eliminate requirement to avoid punishing indigency | AG (later position at oral argument): §28 could permit broader detention on public‑safety grounds, potentially altering §12 | Court declined to decide whether §28 supplants §12; applied existing constitutional and federal precedents to require ability‑to‑pay inquiry and consideration of nonmonetary alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (upheld pretrial detention statute where strict procedural safeguards and clear‑and‑convincing finding of dangerousness exist)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (cannot imprison for nonpayment without inquiry into bona fide efforts and alternatives)
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970) (indigency cannot extend statutory maximum confinement by virtue of inability to pay)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2011) (due process requires alternative procedural safeguards when civil contempt can lead to imprisonment for inability to pay)
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (bail must be individualized and related to assuring appearance)
- In re Pipinos, 33 Cal.3d 189 (Cal. 1982) (trial courts must articulate specific reasons and balance factors when denying bail)
- In re Podesto, 15 Cal.3d 921 (Cal. 1976) (requirement that courts give brief statements of reasons when denying bail)
- Lopez‑Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2014) (applies Salerno to require heightened scrutiny and individualized determinations for pretrial detention)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (courts must consider financial situation and alternatives when detention results from monetary conditions)