In Re Humphrey
Introduction
Every day in America, people are arrested and placed into holding where they are offered a bail that they couldn't even fathom posting. They are subsequently held there, denied the advantages of being let out before trial simply because of their socioeconomic standing. This circumstance can be considered habeas corpus, due to its damning and unjust nature. It is a violation of the human right to liberty, due process, and equal protection under the law. The California Supreme Court case of In re Humphrey provides the first of many answers in the form of trials to this issue and this area of the law that fails to take into consideration the monetary means of its victims. This case overturned past precedent regarding requirements to be let out of holding.
The Facts
Kenneth Humphrey was put on trial for first degree residential robbery, burglary, and misdemeanor theft. On May 23, 2017, Humphrey followed 79 year old Elmer J. to his apartment in the Fillmore District of San Francisco, threatened him, damaged property, and then stole seven dollars along with a bottle of cologne. Additionally, in an effort to immobilize Elmer J., he moved his walker to another room before exiting. At his arraignment on May 31, 2017, Humphrey sought release on his own recognizance or free of the condition of money bail making his argument as to why. However, the trial court denied his request and set bail at 600,000 dollars, a price he was incapable of paying. The plaintiff challenged their ruling and filed for a formal bail hearing. The trial court still argued for a high bail on the basis of his substance abuse history being a “great public safety risk” and a flight risk, but eventually reduced bail to 350,000 dollars. Humphrey's bail was reduced on the condition that Humphrey participate in a substance abuse program However, the public defender stated that Humphrey was too poor to make bail, let alone make bail and participate in the required program. But the court did not consider his financial situation or alternative nonmonetary alternative release requirements.
Holding
Humphrey subsequently further challenged the ruling by filing a petition on the point of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal, calling for his immediate release or a new hearing in consideration of the California Constitution. The Attorney General, who understood that the court should take into consideration a person’s ability to pay, granted Humphrey a new bail hearing. The Court of Appeals concluded that Humphrey's previous bail was unconstitutional, and therefore he was released on that conviction. He was released on various non-financial conditions such as electronic monitoring and an order to stay away from the victim after foreseeing his ability to pay and coming up with alternative nonfinancial requirements upon release. The superior court decided this because they determined that the ruling violated principles of due process and equal protection, and failed to take into consideration the economic situation of the victim, deeming the original ruling unconstitutional and in need of being changed.
Legal Analysis
This case represents a fundamental question at the heart of the American legal system and a discrepancy that has always been present: how can the law work to protect all citizens, regardless of limiting factors such as financial situation? The ideal solution is a fair legal system that takes into account the nuances of different cases. The disadvantage is that people like Humphrey, who are unable to make bail, are not allowed the freedom to prepare outside of detention simply because of economic standing which may prove detrimental later in their case. In this case, the court never inquired or looked into the background of Humphrey with the intent of considering if he was even able to pay the posted bail set in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; this failure is key in this case and what needs to be changed. The ruling favors constitutional liberties such as equal protection and due process, serving as a symbol of hope for future cases in American courts. It is crucial that principles of American liberty are upheld, and in this case the final ruling did just that.
However, while it is vital that a defendant isn’t held because of financial inability to pay bail, this method of alternative penalties should be decided case by case and determined by circumstance. The state has an interest in deterrence and ensuring that the defendant shows up in court, therefore considering factors such as the likelihood the defendant will show up to their hearing and the defendant's criminal record, a logical and fair penalty can be come to. The revised ruling of In re Humphrey demonstrates that legal penalties must be individualized and based off of factors including the protection of public and victim, seriousness of the offense, the defendant's previous criminal record, the defendant's history of compliance, and the likelihood the defendant will appear in court. Other non-financial conditions were mentioned such as electronic monitoring, supervision by pretrial services, community housing or shelter, stay-away orders, drug and alcohol testing.
Previous precedent to this law is demonstrated in United States vs. Salerno, wherein the Court concluded the when the government's interest in protecting the public outweighs individual liberty, pre-trial detention can be "a potential solution to a pressing societal problem.” This example calls forth the indeterminate territory between an individual who is unfairly kept in detention and the individual who must, for the safety and welfare of the community, stay in holding. Under the ruling, the 14th amendment is protected and upheld and this case will now set a model and provide guidance for future cases similar to Humphrey.