California lawmakers took the first step in another sweeping reform of the criminal justice system, fundamentally changing how the court considers bail.

The Assembly’s Public Safety Committee voted 4-2-1 to pass Assembly Bill 42, which would require the court to release a defendant being held for a misdemeanor on his or her own recognizance — unless the court makes an additional finding on the record that there is no condition that would reasonably ensure public safety and the appearance of the defendant if released. Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, voted no on the measure.

An identical companion bill, SB 10, is being discussed in the Senate.

“It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would in enacting this act to safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system,” according to the text of the Assembly bill, “and to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail.”

The concerns from the criminal justice community were myriad Tuesday, ahead of the vote in the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys published a strong editorial condemning the reform as a rush to judgment that poses a safety risk:

“Make no mistake, there is a problem with our current bail system. There is no question that it is unfair to the poor. Nor does it make sense that bail for violent criminals serves any public interest. But these two pieces of legislation are not the solution… These two bills allow defendants, including those accused of capital crimes that carry the death sentence, to remain free pending their trial if they meet certain criteria. Further, when considering bail, the legislation gives scant weight to the criminal history of an arrestee or the arrestees’ prior history of failing to appear in court.”

This last complaint has been one of the broader concerns with the recent implementation of the voter-approved measures Prop 47 and Prop 57, according to many in the law enforcement community.

“The fact that our state constitution mandates that public safety be the primary factor in weighing pretrial release is ignored by these bills,” according to the editorial from the union for county prosecutors.

The bail system also provides numerous benefits to citizens that often go unnoticed, said Inessa Chavez, vice president of All American Bail Bonds, which is based in Santa Clarita.

“Bail providers like All American Bail Bonds offers a number of benefits to the criminal justice system — namely, bail helps guarantee that suspects appear for their chance at justice,” Chavez said. 

“We help provide services that insure justice for victims and suspects, and most importantly, at zero cost to the taxpayer,” she added, noting the new law calls for additional bureaucracy that’s always costly, and associated with delays. 

“This will only increase the bureaucratic delays most people think of when they talk about problems with the court system,” Chavez said, “and this will cost the county, and as a result, taxpayers, millions of dollars, while hurting small businesses throughout the state.”

The American Bail Coalition also issued a strong statement ahead of the vote:

“A vote today to approve this legislation will move the State of California one stop closer to a radical shift in bail policy that will significantly reduce the availability of bail to Californians and will subject them to staying in jail until the government can evaluate them with their new bail computers.  At the conclusion of the hearing today, however, it appears the bill will need significant additional work as it continues through the process.”

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, and to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail.

The arguments in favor, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports the bill, note that thousands are incarcerated due to the cost:

“Every year in California, thousands and thousands of people are jailed while they await their trial simply because they can’t afford to post bail. In a state where the median bail amount is $50,000, it’s no surprise that many people simply can’t afford to buy their freedom in this broken system. AB 42 would help fix that.

Here’s a look at the text of the law, SB 10:

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 assure 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 assure 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.

This story will be updated as soon as more information regarding the vote is available.