California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from In re Humphrey, 19 Cal.App.5th 1006, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 (Cal. App. 2018):
Relying on In re Christie, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at page 1109, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, which prohibits the setting of bail in an amount "that is the functional equivalent of no bail," and Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio (9th Cir. 2014) 770 F.3d 772, 780-781, which discusses authority for the proposition that criteria warranting pretrial detention "satisfy substantive due process only if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, " petitioner's bail motion argued that the substantive due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment entitled him to an individualized determination of his right to be released prior to trial on his own recognizance or bail after he was afforded an opportunity to present evidence relating to any factors that might affect the court's decision whether to release him pending trial, and that his guilt may not be presumed during the bail-setting process.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.