A decision issued by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in
Ayala, et al. v. The Superior Court of San Diego
County addresses the application of the Judicial Council’s
emergency rule for a $0 bail schedule.
In this case, petitioners challenged the San Diego Superior
Court’s implementation order as inconsistent with the Judicial
Council’s emergency rule. Petitioners contended that bail for
offenses and violations covered by the rule must be set at $0,
and the superior court has no authority to increase bail or
impose conditions in an individual case.
San Diego Superior Court’s implementation was consistent with
Judge J. Richards Couzens’ memorandum that CSAC previously
shared. The memorandum highlighted the practical implementation
of the rule, including:
The emergency bail schedule is a setting of presumptive $0 bail,
not a requirement for “no bail” releases. Therefore, nothing in
the rule precludes the court from imposing reasonable conditions
of release.
Nothing in the rule inhibits the ability of the court to exercise
discretion when setting bail. The court maintains the ability to
depart from the $0 bail schedule based on individual case
factors, criminal history, or good cause to protect public safety
or assure future court appearances.
In deciding this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal
stated:
“We conclude the implementation order is not inconsistent
with Emergency Rule 4. The history and language of the rule show
that the Judicial Council intended to adopt a statewide bail
schedule, which like countywide bail schedules sets the
presumptive bail amount for the covered offenses and violations.
The Judicial Council did not intend to suspend the array of
statutes governing bail, as well as the superior court’s inherent
authority, which allow the court to depart from the scheduled
bail amount or impose bail conditions in individual cases under
appropriate circumstances. We further conclude petitioners have
not shown the implementation order or its procedures violate any
4 guarantees of the federal or state constitutions, at least on
the current record. We therefore deny the petitions.”
