**Los Angeles Reinstates Zero Bail Policy, Touted Unfair to the Poor**
In Los Angeles, the contentious zero bail policy has been brought back, sparking concerns over the rights of the accused. The policy resurfaced after a judge ruled that requiring cash bail for unarraigned individuals may infringe upon their constitutional rights.
An ongoing lawsuit, titled Urquidi vs. Los Angeles, seeks to challenge the logic behind cash bail. According to the plaintiffs, staying in jail, even for short periods, could lead to significant losses, such as jobs, housing, or custody of children. Furthermore, they argue that those who are detained yet still presumed innocent experience unnecessary hardship with cash bail.
Judge Lawrence Riff, who granted a preliminary injunction, is apprehensive about detaining people only because they cannot afford bail. In his 64-page decision, he wrote that doing so constituted a “clear, pervasive, and serious constitutional violation,” adding that “Pretrial detention of presumptively innocent people based upon their poverty is neither intended nor permitted to operate as a form of punishment, but that is, plaintiffs say, what is actually happening every day.”
Last week, a Superior Court judge issued the injunction in response to a class-action lawsuit brought forth by individuals who argue that the current bail system inherently favors the wealthy. The injunction will last for 60 days, allowing the county and the city of Los Angeles time to create a “constitutionally sound, effective, concrete” plan to handle minor offenses.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has acknowledged these changes, following 2020’s “Third Los Angeles County Emergency Bail Scheduled Modification.” Consequently, those arrested for most misdemeanor and non-violent felony offenses will now either be released on their recognizance or subject to non-monetary conditions.
**Reinstatement of Zero Bail Policy Highlights Tension Over Rights and Public Safety**
