Welchen v. Sacramento
Equal Justice Under Law is arguing that the city’s pay-for-freedom pretrial justice system is an unconstitutional wealth-based detention scheme that unfairly detains poor arrestees while letting wealthier arrestees free.
Gary Welchen is a 50-year-old resident of Sacramento. Gary Welchen is an indigent arrestee who was kept in the county jail solely because he was too poor to pay the amount of money that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department demanded for his release. Gary has experienced homelessness on several occasions, and his sole source of income is social security disability payments. He represents himself as an individual and represents a Class of similarly situated people subjected to Defendants’ wealth-based detention system.
In Sacramento, arrestees face two different outcomes depending on their wealth status. If Gary had been rich enough to pay $10,000 — like many wealthier people accused of the same offense — he could have walked out of his jail cell immediately under Sacramento County’s pay-for-freedom pretrial justice system. Because the only criterion standing between Gary and freedom was his ability to make a monetary payment, we argue Sacramento operates a wealth-based detention system.
“Money bail is a price tag on freedom. ”
October 2016: The judge ruled that the California Attorney General can be held responsible for her role in implementing money bail. A victory in this case against the Attorney General could have ripple effects across the state and the nation because it will set an important precedent for state officials’ liability.
September 2022: A major victory was secured when the Court ruled that the use of money bail in Sacramento is unconstitutional.
September 5, 2023: U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley issued an order finding Sacramento’s bail schedule to be in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Judge Nunley also enjoined the Sacramento County Sheriff and the Attorney General of California from enforcing the bail schedule or any subsequent pre-arraignment bail schedule that set specific dollar amounts for bail by reference solely to criminal charges, without allowing defendants to modify their bail amounts based on their individual ability to pay, risk of nonappearance, or threat of public safety before trial. Effectively, this ruling means that no arrestees in Sacramento will be held in jail because they cannot afford their bail amounts. It also means that Sacramento officials can no longer use their former cash bail policy without making adjustments based on the arrestee’s financial status and other individualized determinations that are far more tailored to the intended purpose of bail, such as flight risk and public safety.
case details
Status: Ongoing
Date Filed: 01/30/16
Plaintiffs: Gary Wayne Welchen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Defendants: The County of Sacramento, Kamala Harris in her official capacity as the California Attorney General, and Scott Jones in his capacity as the Sacramento County Sheriff.
Jurisdiction: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Partners:
IMPACT
Sacramento’s bail schedule was found to be in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, as of September 5, 2023.