Bail: pretrial release.
Summary
Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount, as specified, and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant's release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that his or her release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail. This bill would implement a revised pretrial release procedure. The bill would require, except when a person is arrested for certain felonies, that a pretrial services agency conduct a pretrial risk assessment on an arrested person and prepare a pretrial services report that includes the results of the pretrial risk assessment and recommendations on conditions of release for the person immediately upon booking. The bill would require the pretrial services agency to transmit the report to a magistrate, judge, or court commissioner and the magistrate, judge, or court commissioner, within an unspecified number of hours, to issue an oral or written order to release the person, with or without release conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. The bill would require, if a person is in custody at the time of his or her arraignment, the judge or magistrate to consider the pretrial services report and any relevant information provided by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant and to order the pretrial release of the person, with or without conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. If the judge or magistrate determines that pretrial release, with or without conditions, will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the person in court as required, the bill would require the judge or magistrate to set monetary bail at the least restrictive level necessary to ensure the appearance of the defendant in court as required. The bill would authorize, if the judge or magistrate has set monetary bail, the person to execute an unsecured appearance bond, execute a secured appearance bond, or deposit a percentage of the sum mentioned in the order setting monetary bail. The bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to file a motion seeking the pretrial detention of a person in certain circumstances, including when the person has been charged with a capital crime and the prosecuting attorney alleges that the facts are evident or the presumption great. The bill would require, if this motion has been filed, a hearing to be held to determine whether to release the person pending trial, unless the person waives the hearing. The bill would authorize the person to be detained pretrial only if the court makes one of several specified findings. The bill would require each county to establish a pretrial services agency that would be responsible for gathering information about newly arrested persons, conducting pretrial risk assessments, preparing individually tailored recommendations to the court regarding release options and conditions, and providing pretrial services and supervision to persons on pretrial release. The bill would require an unspecified agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among others, selecting a pretrial risk assessment tool to be used in conducting pretrial risk assessments that meets specified requirements and reviewing collected data to monitor compliance with state law and guidelines relating to pretrial release. The bill would also authorize that agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among other things, providing training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services agencies, jail staff, and law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with that unspecified agency, to develop a plan that establishes statewide requirements for counties relating to annual reporting of pretrial release and detention information. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status
died
2 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2016
Committee Review
May 2017
Assembly Failed
Jun 2017
Governor
Introduced Dec 5, 2016
Last action Feb 1, 2018
Floor votes · Assembly Jun 2, 2017
How they voted
33–34
Failed · 7 other
Total votes 74
Jun 2, 2017
D
Democratic52
63% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Nay
R
Republican21
95% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
19
Key actions
3
Committee
6
Amendments
3
Jun 2, 2017
Vote failed
Assembly Vote: fail (33-34-7)
assembly
May 26, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 7.) (May 26).
lower
May 17, 2017
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 19, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 28, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 27, 2017
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
lower
Feb 15, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 14, 2017
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
lower
Feb 13, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Dec 6, 2016
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee January 5.
lower
1 primary · 10 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Rob Bonta
DDemocratic
Co
Bill Quirk
DDemocratic
Co
David Chiu
DDemocratic
Co
Laura Friedman
DDemocratic
Co
Mark Stone
DDemocratic
Co
Reggie Jones-Sawyer
DDemocratic
Co
Richard Bloom
DDemocratic
Co
Robert M. Hertzberg
DDemocratic
Co
Scott Wiener
DDemocratic
Co
Susan Eggman
DDemocratic
Co
TG
Todd Gloria
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 42
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 42. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline