## Facts

- Kenneth Humphrey, an indigent 63-year-old with prior felony convictions, was arrested after allegedly threatening and robbing a 79-year-old neighbor in their senior housing facility, taking $7 and cologne.
- He was charged with first-degree residential robbery and burglary, elder abuse, and misdemeanor theft from an elder.
- At arraignment, the trial court set money bail at $600,000 at the prosecutor’s request, without considering Humphrey’s ability to pay.
- After a bail hearing, the trial court declined release on recognizance or supervised release and reduced bail to $350,000, again without determining ability to pay or whether nonfinancial conditions would suffice; the reduction was tied to substance-abuse treatment participation.
- Humphrey sought habeas relief, arguing that unaffordable bail is the functional equivalent of a pretrial detention order.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning pretrial freedom solely on ability to pay money bail, resulting in detention of those who cannot pay, is constitutional.
2. Whether due process and equal protection require courts to consider ability to pay and less restrictive alternatives before setting money bail that will cause detention.
3. What findings and evidentiary standard are required before a court may order or effectively impose pretrial detention.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment granting Humphrey a new, constitutionally compliant bail determination.
- The Court held that conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.
- If financial bail is imposed, the court must consider ability to pay and may not detain a person solely because they lack resources to post bail.
- Before imposing detention (including through unaffordable bail), the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary to protect public or victim safety or to reasonably assure appearance, and that no less restrictive nonfinancial conditions would suffice.
- The Court permitted consideration of public safety in pretrial release decisions, but required individualized assessment rather than reliance on bail schedules as dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- Pretrial liberty is the default; detention is a severe deprivation that must be justified by compelling governmental interests and constrained by least-restrictive conditions.
- Due process requires an individualized hearing assessing risk, ability to pay, and feasible nonfinancial release conditions; courts must make express findings supporting detention or a financial condition that results in detention.
- Equal protection is violated when defendants with similar risk profiles are treated differently solely because one can pay and the other cannot.
- Money bail is permissible only if carefully calibrated to the defendant’s means and the government’s interests; unaffordable bail cannot serve as an indirect detention order.
- If the state seeks detention, it bears the burden to prove necessity by clear and convincing evidence and to show that no nonfinancial condition can reasonably protect safety or assure appearance.

## Conclusion

California required courts to assess ability to pay and consider less restrictive nonfinancial conditions before setting bail that would lead to detention, and allowed pretrial detention only on clear-and-convincing findings that detention is necessary and no alternative conditions will reasonably protect public safety or assure court appearance.


In re Humphrey, 482 P.3d 1008 (Cal. 2021)