Settlement reached in San Francisco bail challenge case

San Francisco will eliminate its pre-arraignment cash bail schedule in favor of a system that "takes money out of the equation," according to City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

The proposed settlement issued on Friday resolves a long-running legal battle in which the city -- and then-Attorney General Kamala Harris -- refused to defend cash bail.

Attorneys representing the bail industry defended the current system as intervenors in the case.

The sheriff's department will conduct a public safety assessment on pre-arraignment detainees within eight hours. Superior court judges will review that assessment and decide whether to release the detainees on their own recognizance or keep them in custody.

If a judge does not make a decision within 18 hours, a risk assessment tool will make the determination.

Law enforcement officials can request a 12-hour extension if they believe the detainee poses a risk to public safety.

Those accused of violent crimes will not be released without judicial review, according to Herrera.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers in March struck down the county's use of money bail for those suspected of crimes but not yet charged as a "significant deprivation of liberty." She condemned the current system as "arbitrary," because it "merely provides a 'get out of jail' card for anyone with sufficient means to afford it."

Plaintiffs' attorneys argued the county's use of the bail schedule is unconstitutional. Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco, 15-CV4959 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 28, 2015).

Two women filed suit after they were arrested and held in jail before their arraignment because they could not pay bail. The district attorney did not file charges, and one of the plaintiffs lost her job.

Rogers and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors must approve the settlement.

Legislation to repeal the state's cash bail system in favor of risk assessment tools was halted after the bail industry and other opponents submitted 600,000 signatures to state election officials to challenge the bill through a voter referendum in November 2020.

Sadik H. Huseny, representing the plaintiffs, said Rogers' ruling is a "safeguard" if SB10 is repealed.

-- Winston Cho