California Supreme Court Rules Pretrial Detention Must Be Rare, Ending Unconstitutional Bail Practices The California Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling that pretrial liberty is the default, while pretrial detention should only be imposed in rare and carefully justified circumstances. The decision prohibits courts from using unaffordable bail as a means of detention and requires individualized assessments of defendants' financial circumstances. The ruling builds on the 2021 Humphrey case and aims to end the systemic practice of detaining poor individuals accused of nonviolent offenses. Gerald Kowalczyk's attempt to purchase a hamburger with credit cards he found on the floor led to months of pretrial incarceration in a California jail, not because he posed a danger to society or violated any conditions of release, but because the court set an exorbitant bail amount that he could not afford, followed by an outright denial of bail in violation of the law. This week, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that reaffirms the constitutional principle that pretrial liberty is the default, while pretrial detention should only be imposed in rare and carefully justified circumstances. The court emphasized that if monetary bail is required, it must be set at a reasonable amount that the defendant can actually pay.For years, California courts operated an unconstitutional system of shadow detention, where setting bail at an unaffordable level effectively resulted in detention, regardless of the defendant's actual risk to the community. The court clarified that pretrial detention requires strong evidence of a serious charge and clear and convincing proof that the defendant's release would pose a substantial risk of great bodily harm to others.Justice Joshua P. Groban, in his concurrence, highlighted how money bail had been used to detain poor individuals accused of nonviolent offenses, with severe consequences for their employment, education, housing, access to public benefits, immigration status, and family stability. This practice was not an aberration but a systemic issue. The recent ruling closes this loophole definitively, prohibiting courts from using unaffordable bail as a means of detention.Where detention is not legally authorized, bail must be set at an amount the defendant can reasonably afford, based on their individual financial circumstances. This decision builds on the 2021 Humphrey ruling, which first declared wealth-based detention unconstitutional and was part of a case I helped bring. Securing such victories is challenging, and ensuring they are enforced is even more difficult.Even after the Humphrey decision, judges in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Alameda counties rarely considered a defendant's financial situation, with only one instance out of nearly 250 observed cases where financial circumstances were addressed. In over 95% of hearings, judges did not cite any legal standard when ordering detention.Shockingly, more than 90% of those jailed pretrial were charged with offenses that did not even qualify for detention under the California Constitution, such as shoplifting, driving without a license, or vandalism. These findings were documented by Silicon Valley De-Bug, a community organization that monitored arraignment courtrooms for years. The system failed to comply with the Humphrey ruling, and it is now crucial to ensure that the Kowalczyk decision is properly implemented. This begins with improving public defense.California is one of only two states that provide no state funding for trial-level public defense, leaving the 58 counties without standardized oversight or resources. The result is a fragmented system of unequal and inadequate representation. The recent ruling mandates that courts make individualized assessments of flight risk, public safety, alternative release conditions, and the defendant's ability to pay.This requires defense attorneys to be present at or before arraignment, ready to argue about the defendant's financial situation, demand findings, and challenge excessive bail. However, in counties where public defenders handle caseloads of 100 or more, this level of advocacy is impossible without additional resources. Another critical aspect is the availability of alternatives to detention.The ruling requires judges to consider non-monetary release conditions, such as drug treatment, check-ins, social services referrals, or ankle monitoring in serious cases, before resorting to bail or detention. However, these alternatives only exist where counties have invested in pretrial services outside of law enforcement, such as San Francisco's Pretrial Diversion Project. Most counties have not made such investments, rendering the constitutional right to alternatives meaningless without viable options.Finally, the Judicial Council, which sets policy for California courts, should establish monitoring standards, reporting requirements, and training protocols to prevent unnecessary or unconstitutional pretrial incarceration. Kenneth Humphrey spent 250 days in jail for a $5 bottle of cologne, and Gerald Kowalczyk spent months behind bars for a hamburger. Behind these cases are tens of thousands of Californians who have endured similar unjust incarceration, losing jobs, homes, and custody of their children because the system criminalized their poverty.The Supreme Court has now clearly reaffirmed what the California Constitution has stated since 1849: pretrial liberty is the norm, and pretrial detention is the carefully limited exception