2023-2024
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
Beatriz (Bea) Dieringer
Rolling Hills
Vice President
Ariel Pe
Lakewood
Secretary/Treasurer
Michael Cao
Arcadia
State League Director
James R. Bozajian
Calabasas
Immediate Past President
Andrew Chou
Diamond Bar
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org September 28, 2023
The Honorable Samantha P. Jessner
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Request to Suspend October 1 implementation of Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP)
Dear Honorable Presiding Judge Jessner:
On behalf of the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities (Division), representing 86 cities in the county, we strongly urge the Court to suspend the October 1, 2023 implementation of the PreArraignment Release Protocols (PARP). We request that the Court retain the current presumptive bail schedule for felonies and misdemeanors, under which indigent defendants may request bail reductions from the Court when appropriate pursuant to existing law.
As elected officials, representing cities with independent police departments and those with Los Angeles Sheriff Department contracts, we have deep concerns regarding the public safety impacts that the new PARP will have in our communities. These new protocols represent a substantial change for all law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County; these protocols will increase their already burdened workload and significantly hinder their ability to protect our residents within Los Angeles County.
Throughout Los Angeles County, our citizens have been increasingly voicing their serious concerns for their safety, based on the rise in crimes they are experiencing, including assaultive crimes, organized retail theft and other property-related crimes that impact our residents and businesses the most. It is difficult for our residents to trust the criminal justice system when the list of crimes in our county that are no longer being prosecuted vigorously, or at all, continues to grow. The Court’s proposed zero bail schedule (PARP) further erodes this public trust and the public’s sense of community security.
The Court’s proposal mandates the release without presumptive bail for most arrestees following their arrest. This PARP proposal was announced and scheduled for speedy implementation without a Court solicitation of community input and without sufficient consideration of the impact that this new policy would have on those affected by it.
The latest version of the Court’s new bail schedules was issued on September 12, 2023 with an effective date, 19 days later, on October 1, 2023. Based on comments made at the September 26th Board of Supervisors’ hearing on this issue, it appears that many are still confused regarding how this new PARP plan will work; it also appears that affected agencies, such as the Sheriff’s Department, other police agencies and the District Attorney’s Office, will not be as prepared as they should be before these major bail changes are implemented. The Court appears to recognize this problem, as it has issued a new eight-page FAQ, explaining its PARP, on September 26, 2023, only four days before its scheduled implementation. At the very least, this PARP should not go into effect until all the Court’s justice partners fully understand and are sufficiently prepared to perform all their duties required by this new bail plan.
The Court’s current bail schedule, which has been in effect for decades, if not longer, lists a presumptive bail amount for each criminal offense. Such bail is legally required by the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 12, to ensure that the arrestee who posts such bail will attend his court appearances and not endanger public safety if released. Under the Court’s proposed PARP, most crimes listed in the revised bail schedules do not provide for presumptive bail or a magistrate review prior to the required release of an arrestee.
There are many circumstances, however, in which releasing an arrestee for one of these offenses, without requiring appropriate monetary bail, would endanger a crime victim or members of the public. To obtain a court hearing to request approval of bail for these offenses, however, the Court’s PARP requires law enforcement agencies, within two hours of an arrestee’s booking, to make a written application to the Court for a bail deviation, with reasons, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1269c. This Section only applies to “a bailable felony or for the misdemeanor offense of violating a restraining order” and specifies no time period within which a bail deviation request must be made. The Court’s PARP places an undue burden on police agencies who are busily preparing police reports and continuing to further investigate after an arrestee is booked for one or more crimes so that they can present the case to the prosecutor for filing within the statutorily required 48 hours after the arrest.
We recognize the Court’s responsibility to preserve the constitutional rights for all.
However, we strongly believe that the Court’s bail system for offenses should be a presumptive bail system, as exists currently, which assigns a presumptive amount for each offense based on the nature and severity of the offense and incorporates amounts for additional factors such as offender history, number of crimes charged, and public safety risks. Under current law, except for capital offenses, a defendant is entitled to request a speedy court hearing to request a lower bail amount than the presumptive amount; the court is authorized to lower the defendant’s bail or even provide him with a release on his promise to appear when it is legally appropriate to do so. This system provides for a fair hearing for both sides.
There is no reason to implement this new plan without full public input and on an expedited basis. The court should provide everyone who may be affected by it an opportunity to be heard and be willing to change this plan based on that input. Even if the Court is unwilling to modify its plan, there is no reason for the Court not to permit its justice partners to fully prepare for its implementation.
We believe strongly that the scales of justice within our criminal system must be balanced. However, the implementation of the PARP tips these scales too far in the direction of endangering public safety in our communities. We urge your delay in the implementation of the Court’s new bail protocols and request reconsideration of these bail protocols.
Sincerely,
Beatriz (Bea) Dieringer
President, Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities