Spike in inmate cases sparks pleas for reinstatement of zero bail

In the weeks since San Francisco Superior Court let its zero bail schedule expire, the county jail has experienced a surge of coronavirus cases, prompting the DA, public defender and several local attorneys this week to plead with the court to reinstate it.

In a joint letter to Presiding Judge Garrett L. Wong, the group -- comprised of DA Chesa Boudin, Public Defender Manohar Raju, Yolanda Jackson of the Bar Association of San Francisco, David Mauroff of the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project and Dr. Lisa Pratt of the Department of Public Health -- argued the court's decision to no longer automatically release certain offenders contributed to a 40% increase in positive cases in the jail since June 18.

However, court spokesman Ken Garcia and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto said Thursday the court's elimination of the emergency policy hasn't had any bearing on the their ability to contain the virus within the jail. They said that's because the court continues to follow federal guidelines established in a class action lawsuit that in 2019 eliminated the county's pre-arraignment money bail system and replaced it with a risk assessment system.

The group urging that arrestees be immediately released without bail before waiting for a determination on their threat to public safety, wrote in the July 7 letter: "Given the surge in infections and the virulent nature of the coronavirus, concerns for [San Francisco Sheriff's Department] employees, all those who work in the jail and those arrested, reinstating zero bail seems to be an obvious and necessary choice."

The group's request comes as several superior courts, including those in Alameda, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Contra Costa, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Fresno Counties have continued to use a bail schedule modeled after the Judicial Council's zero bail order after it expired on June 20.

"Removing zero bail signals an assumption that our current public health crisis is over, which is clearly not the case," Raju said Wednesday.

However, court spokesman Garcia said Thursday, "We are following the federal court's mandate," referring to U.S. District Judge Yvonne G. Rogers' ruling that the county's misdemeanor cash bail schedule was unconstitutional. Buffin v. San Francisco, CV-04959-YGR (N.D. Cal. 2019). He said the court has been and continues to work with its "justice system partners" to reduce at-risk populations in the county jail.

Miyamoto said in an email Thursday the letter does not accurately portray how the procedures established by the Buffin ruling protect inmates from contracting the virus in the absence of zero bail. He also said while he doesn't believe current public safety concerns require him to second-guess the court's decision to set bail on a case by case basis, he will continue to work with the groups who signed the letter to identify and address concerns as they develop.

"If the jail population increases to the level we can no longer isolate and quarantine new arrestees, my position on automatic zero dollar bail, as well as other procedures designed to lower the jail population, is subject to change," Miyamoto said.

In their letter, the group said Buffin has already caused unnecessary delays for pretrial defendants to get released, putting them at greater risk of contracting the virus.

"Zero bail requires that eligible arrestees will be immediately released," the letter states. "In contrast, the bail procedures implemented as a result of the Buffin case require the detention of these individuals until there is an expedited judicial determination that public safety is not jeopardized by their release."

"With the revocation of zero bail, many people will sit in jail even before seeing a judge, putting them and everyone around them at risk," Boudin added Wednesday.

The Daily Journal sought comment from attorneys in other counties where the zero bail schedule was rescinded but did not hear back before this article went to press.