www.lacourt.org | publicinfo@lacourt.org | @LASuperiorCourt
Media Relations
publicinfo@lacourt.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 30, 2023
EARLY DATA REVEALS SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SAFETY
BENEFITS OF NEW LOS ANGELES COUNTY PRE-
ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE PROTOCOLS
Preliminary Report on Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols in Los Angeles
County Demonstrates Individualized Risk Determinations Protect Public Safety
More Effectively Than Money Bail System
A new report examining initial data from the first three weeks of the Court’s new bail schedules,
which include within them Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARPs) for offenses designated by
the law as non-violent, non-serious felonies and misdemeanors, reveals significant public safety
benefits of the new policy compared with the previous traditional money bail system, Presiding
Judge Samantha P. Jessner and Executive Officer/Clerk of Court David W. Slayton announced
today.
“The Preliminary PARP Report released today demonstrates the undeniable public safety benefits
of utilizing individualized risk determinations to assess conditions of release, as opposed to
basing conditions of release solely on an arrested individual’s ability to pay traditional money
bail,” said Presiding Judge Jessner. “This new system is working exactly the way it was intended
– the vast majority of those determined by a magistrate to be a significant risk to public and
victim safety, or a significant flight risk, are being temporarily held in jail prior to arraignment,
while the vast majority of those who pose little risk to public or victim safety and are likely to
return to court are being released with non-financial conditions. Under the previous money bail
system, these same high-risk individuals would be able to buy their release from jail if they had
access to money, and the low-risk individuals would remain in jail for days, weeks, months, or
even years if they did not have access to money to purchase their release.”
-MORE-
PRELIMINARY PARP REPORT
2-2-2-2
The new bail schedules, which became effective in Los Angeles County on October 1, provide
guidance to law enforcement as to how an arrestee who is booked into jail should be released
(referred to as Cite and Release [CR] or Book and Release [BR] in the bail schedules) or referred
to a magistrate for an individualized determination of that arrestee’s risk to public or victim
safety and likelihood of returning to Court (referred to as “MR” in the bail schedules).
Furthermore, if an offense is designated as CR or BR in the bail schedules, law enforcement has
the ability, through the bail deviation process pursuant to Penal Code Section 1269c, to request
through a phone call a magistrate review of the arrestee prior to release if they have reason to
believe the individual is an enhanced risk to public or victim safety or is unlikely to return to
court. Data from the preliminary report shows that law enforcement rarely took advantage of
this mechanism. As the report indicates, 97% of those booked by law enforcement for offenses
designated as CR or BR in the bail schedules were not elevated for magistrate review despite the
option to do so.
Those arrestees who are referred to magistrate review undergo individualized risk
determinations and consideration of tailored release orders or no release prior to arraignment
based on that review. Magistrates consider information about the arrestee’s current offense and
past criminal history, including past failures to appear in court and criminal convictions, to
determine appropriate non-financial conditions of release for arrestees, if any. These
individualized determinations assess the arrestee’s risk to public or victim safety and their
likelihood of returning to court. If the magistrate determines that no conditions exist to safely
release the individual into the community, the individual is temporarily held until arraignment.
Due to statutory restrictions, traditional money bail, with no individualized risk assessment of
arrestees, is still available for those arrested for the most serious crimes, including murder, rape
and robbery.
Key findings from the Preliminary PARP Report, which is attached to this News Release, include
the following:
• The majority of individuals released under PARP - 85% - were considered low-risk;
• The majority of individuals held until arraignment under PARP - 71% - were considered
medium-to-high-risk;
• The majority of those eligible for traditional money bail because they were arrested for a
serious or violent crime - 52% - were considered medium-to-high risk and had the option
of paying their way out of jail regardless of their risk; and
• Less than 3% of individuals booked since the PARP implementation were rebooked. Only
two of those individuals rebooked were previously ordered released by a magistrate after
the individualized review, while almost half of those that were rebooked were released
back into the community on money bail because they were arrested for a serious or
violent crime and, as a result, were not individually reviewed for risk.
The full report is available below.
-MORE-
PRELIMINARY PARP REPORT
3-3-3-3
“Despite a significant amount of misinformation circulating regarding the new bail policy’s impact
on public safety, we are encouraged that the first three weeks of data reveal the new system is
actually keeping communities safer,” said Executive Officer/Clerk of Court David W. Slayton. “By
providing individualized risk assessments for many of those arrested in Los Angeles County prior
to their release, rather than arbitrarily releasing individuals based on whether they can afford a
certain amount of money bail, this new system better ensures that those who present a
significant risk are held while those who present little to no risk are released prior to trial.”
The Court remains dedicated to working collaboratively with justice partners, including law
enforcement, to leverage data-informed decision-making to ensure the new bail policy continues
to protect public safety while also ensuring that those arrestees, who are innocent until proven
guilty, who pose little risk to public or victim safety and are likely to return to court, do not sit
behind bars simply because they cannot afford to pay money bail. To that end, the Court is
committed to data transparency as the new bail schedules are implemented in Los Angeles
County. In addition to today’s Preliminary PARP Report, the Court will soon make a data
dashboard available on its public website.
For more information, including links to the current Felony and Misdemeanor Bail Schedules,
please visit www.lacourt.org/BAIL.
###
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PRELIMINARY REPORT
PRE-ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE PROTOCOLS
Historically, most arrestees booked into jail in Los Angeles County could obtain release prior to arraignment by posting
money bail, notwithstanding their risk to public safety or likelihood to return to court. The amount of money required
for release was determined only by the category of the alleged offense as listed in the bail schedule. A person’s access
to money determined their release status –
not their risk to public or victim safety or of not appearing for court
proceedings
. Put differently, a person presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt who
presented little risk, but was poor, stayed in jail for days, weeks, months, or even years. A person who presented a
substantial risk, but with access to money, was released back into the community within hours. Repeated studies from
Los Angeles County, the State of California, and other jurisdictions across the country have shown that a system based
on wealth rather than risk not only has harmful consequences for individuals booked into jail but also increases
reoffending and failures to appear.
We can and should do better to ensure equal access to justice. Access to freedom prior to conviction should not
arbitrarily be based on an arrestee’s access to money. Rather, access to freedom prior to conviction should be
based on the individual’s risk – risk to public and victim safety, and risk of flight. This is what is required not only by
the Constitution of the United States and California, but also by applicable state laws. This is what the public should
demand of our criminal justice system.
It is imperative to note that existing law prohibits the new risk-based PARP system to apply to all arrestees. Ironically,
those accused of the most serious crimes, including murder, rape and robbery, remain subject to traditional money
bail and can pay their way out of jail, regardless of risk to public safety.
As this report will show, the new PARP system has already shown significant benefits to public safety. Individuals
subject to the new risk-based system are, by and large, temporarily held in jail prior to arraignment when they present
a significant risk to public or victim safety or are unlikely to return to court. If the individualized determination of risk
conducted by judges reveals that the arrestee is a low risk to public safety or of flight, they are released. From
October 1 – 21:
• 8
5% of the individuals released under PARP were low risk;
• 71% of those temporarily held in jail for arraignment were medium-to-
high risk.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
Access to freedom prior to conviction
should not arbitrarily be based on an
arrestee’s access to money. Rather,
access to freedom prior to conviction
should be based on the individual’s
risk – risk to public and victim safety,
and risk of flight.
Since October 1, Los Angeles County has operated pursuant
to a pretrial release system that upholds the foundational
principles of the Constitution and the law. The
new Pre-
Arraignment Release Protocols (PARPs)
ensure the decision
to release most arrestees from jail prior to conviction is no
longer determined by a person’s wealth, but instead by
their risk to public or victim safety and their likelihood of
returning to court. Where traditional bail amounts are tied
only to the currently alleged crime, the PARPs now allow
judges to also consider the person’s criminal history and
their individualized risk in determining whether release is
appropriate for low-level, non-serious crimes.
Issued October 30, 2023
When a person is arrested in Los Angeles County and charged with a crime, their first appearance in court is at
arraignment. Arraignment typically occurs less than 48 hours after booking but can occur up to four days after arrest if
the arrest falls at the beginning of a holiday weekend. It is up to law enforcement officers to decide whether to book the
person prior to arraignment into jail or to release the person in the field with a promise to appear at a future court date.
Under the traditional bail schedule model, most arrestees in Los Angeles County who were booked into jail could obtain
release prior to arraignment simply by posting money bail – if they could afford to do so. The amount of money required
for release was determined by the category of the alleged offense as set forth in bail schedules. Whether a person was
released or stayed in jail rose and fell based upon their access to money, not based on their risk to public or victim safety
or their likelihood of returning to court. People presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt who
presented little risk, but were poor, stayed in jail. Those who presented significant risk, but had access to money, were
released back into the community almost instantly.
In 2020, the Court adopted the Pretrial Risk Evaluation Program (PREP), a pilot program that allowed the Court to make
individualized risk-based release decisions for certain arrestees. This is the same tool that the magistrate judges use
today to assess risk. During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Court adopted an Emergency Bail Schedule (EBS) pursuant to
the Judicial Branch’s Emergency Rules Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. And in May of this year, a court order issued
in Urquidi v. City of Los Angeles found the traditional bail schedules as applied unconstitutional and prohibited the two
largest law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County (LAPD and LASD) from applying traditional bail schedules,
resulting in the inconsistent pre-arraignment enforcement of bail within Los Angeles County.
Based on the Court’s experience with the PREP pilot program, experience when the EBS was in effect, the findings
resulting from extensive scholarly research regarding pre-arraignment decisions, the recent court decision in Urquidi that
has resulted in non-uniform pre-arraignment release decisions in LA County, and the experience of many other courts
statewide and nationwide that have adopted innovative pretrial release protocols, on October 1, 2023, the Court
adopted new bail schedules and associated PARPs, which eliminated traditional money bail for many non-violent, non-
serious felonies and misdemeanors. Instead, release status for these alleged crimes is determined by an individualized
determination by a judge of their risk to public and victim safety and likelihood of returning to court.
The new bail schedules and associated PARPs provide guidance to law enforcement whether an arrestee should be:
• Booked into jail and released; (Cite and Release (CR) or Book and Release (BR));
• Released only after a magistrate judge’s review (Magistrate Review – (MR)); or
• Pursuant to existing law, eligible for release on traditional money bail.
*As required by law, the new bail schedules continue to provide traditional money bail eligibility for
offenses that are designated by statute as serious and violent offenses.
*Persons arrested while out on Felony Probation, Parole or Post Release Community Supervision are
referred to a magistrate judge for review.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Disturbingly, 52% of those who were eligible for traditional money bail because of prohibitions in the law regarding
serious and violent crimes, were medium-to-high risk, meaning, if they had access to money, they could buy their way
out of jail without any individualized determination of their risk to public safety or likelihood to return to court.
There is simply no doubt that moving away from a money-based system of release to an individualized, fact-based, and
risk-based system of release, is not only good for public and victim safety; it also restores a level of fairness and equity to
a system that is much maligned and flawed for lacking both.
This report summarizes available data from the first three weeks of a new approach to pretrial release by the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County.
2
It is important to note that, as has been the case for decades, law enforcement may request review by a magistrate
judge if they have additional or supplemental facts and information that would suggest a person arrested for an
offense designated as CR or BR is an enhanced risk to public or victim safety or will not show up to court. This process
is known as “bail deviation.” Law enforcement often has additional information about an arrestee, beyond the nature
of the crime committed, that is not available to the magistrate judge at the time of the bail determination. This
includes, but is not limited to, information about arrests that have not yet been formally filed as charges against the
individual, particular facts about the individual’s alleged crime, and other criminal history outside of Los Angeles
County. Bail deviation simply requires law enforcement to place a call to the County’s Probation Department
(operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week) to request an individualized determination of risk.
For those arrestees subject to MR, the Court’s magistrate judges are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to
conduct individualized risk assessments, which consider the offense the person was arrested for along with their
criminal history and other information to determine the arrestee’s risk to the public or victim safety and their
likelihood of showing up to court. Based on the individualized risk assessment conducted by the magistrate judge, the
magistrate judge can order release of the individual on their own recognizance, release with non-financial conditions,
or the individual held until arraignment if no release conditions exist that would protect the public or victim safety or
assure the individual’s appearance in court.
This report examines the 5,113 bookings between midnight, October 1 and 11:59 p.m., October 21, 2023.
A booking occurs when, after an arrest, the law enforcement officer fingerprints the individual. The data here does
not count unique individuals. This sample does not include people who were cited and released in the field by law
enforcement or those arrested on an arrest warrant. It does include people arrested for offenses designated as CR
who are, nonetheless, booked.
DATA FROM THE FIRST THREE WEEKS OF THE NEW BAIL SCHEDULES
236
240
204
219
194
234
223
252
239
237
265
285
248
242
302
251
239
246
253
243
261
243
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
TOTAL BOOKINGS: 5,113
Total Bookings By Date Average Bookings Per Day
3
14%
8%
27%
40%
11%
TOTAL BOOKINGS BY CATEGORY
Cite and Release (CR) Offenses
Book and Release (BR) Offenses
Magistrate Judge Review (MR) Offenses
Traditional Money Bail Offenses (PC 1270.1)
(serious and violent offense - not eligible for PARPs)
Other
The average number of daily bookings (243) is consistent with the average number of daily bookings over the
previous 12-month period.
Individuals who were booked into jail fell into five main categories: CR, BR, MR, traditional money bail, and Other.
The majority of the bookings were for crimes that are not eligible for review under the PARPs, meaning serious and
violent crimes.
4
1
1
Bookings categorized as “Other” include bookings on charges that are not listed in the bail schedules. For a misdemeanor arrest charge, they are deemed CR.
For a felony arrest charge, they are deemed BR.
*Note that arrestees are booked at law enforcement’s discretion, and the data here consider only those persons
who were actually booked by law enforcement.
As noted previously, the bail schedules and PARPs provide the option for law enforcement to request enhanced
review through bail deviation for any offense designated in the bail schedules as CR or BR. When the request is
made, a magistrate judge conducts an individualized review of the arrestee’s risk and determines the appropriate
release status, if any, based on the risk assessment. Despite having the option to do so, law enforcement requested
enhanced review only 133 times, or 3% of the time. With regard to the other 97% of bookings, law enforcement
did not request enhanced review and permitted the bail schedules and PARPs to operate as written.
OUTCOMES BY RELEASE CATEGORY
2
During the first three weeks after implementation of PARP, magistrate judges reviewed 1,213 bookings and
assessed the risk of each arrestee for the purpose of determining the appropriate release conditions for that
individual. Of those reviewed, magistrate judges ordered 64% temporarily held until arraignment because,
based on their risk, there were no conditions available to the magistrate judge that would reasonably ensure
the safety of the victim or public or the appearance of the arrestee at arraignment.
435
778
Ordered released by a judge
Held for further review at
arraignment
OUTCOMES BY RISK
Paramount to determining the appropriate release status, if any, are public and victim safety. Therefore, data
about the risk of reoffending for individuals who were eligible for release or released are informative and
important. The risk of reoffending fell into three distinct outcomes based on the type of release.
Individuals who were eligible to buy their freedom through traditional money bail and who were arrested for more
serious and violent offenses presented more significant risk as compared to those who were ordered released after
a magistrate judge conducted an individualized determination of the arrestee’s risk. Concomitantly, those who
were ordered temporarily held by the magistrate judge until arraignment presented more significant risk factors.
By way of comparison, prior to the imposition of PARP, pursuant to traditional bail schedules, these very same
persons would have been eligible for traditional money bail and could have purchased their freedom, or they
would have been released pursuant to long-standing law enforcement policies based on the category of offense.
This is worthy of repetition – under the new bail schedules, those who present substantial risk cannot simply buy
their way to freedom; conversely, under the old system, persons who present a substantial risk could have been
back in the community within hours.
2
Note that this data set does not capture the actual custody status of individuals. Individuals eligible for traditional money bail may or may not have
obtained the funds to secure their release, and individuals ordered temporarily held until arraignment by the magistrate judge may have been
released by law enforcement prior to arraignment. Some individuals may be released or held lawfully for other reasons.
5
(64%)
(36%)
3
Risk of reoffending is calculated on the basis of an individual’s previous criminal history using a scientifically validated risk assessment tool: the Public
Safety Assessment (PSA). Information on the PSA can be found here: https://advancingpretrial.org/psa/about/. A validation of the PSA in California can
be found here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/sb36.htm
52% of those eligible for
traditional money bail were
medium-to-high risk while
48% were low risk.
REARRESTS
One of the key measures to examine regarding the success of a bail system is the extent of rearrest for individuals
who are released pending resolution of their case. Notwithstanding the short period in which PARP has been in
effect, this data is indicative of the success of the PARPs so far.
97.5% of individuals were booked only once during the first three weeks under the new bail schedules. Nearly half
of those rebooked were persons who had been released on traditional money bail, meaning they were arrested for
a serious or violent offense. Only two individuals ordered released after a magistrate judge’s individualized review
of the arrestee were rebooked during this period.
52%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Medium-to-High Risk
Low Risk
71% of those held were
medium-to-high risk while
29% of were low risk.
15% 85%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Medium-to-High Risk
Low Risk
15% of those ordered
released by a magistrate
judge were medium-to-high
risk while 85% were low risk.
71% 29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Medium-to-High Risk
Low Risk
6
Risk of Reoffending During Release
3
KEY FINDINGS
7
The PARPs enhance public safety.
Those arrestees subject to MR, either because
their offense is categorized as MR or because law
enforcement chooses to elevate the arrestee to
MR, are now subject to a detailed judicial review
which goes beyond what occurs with traditional
money bail. For eligible arrestees, not only is a
judge now considering the current arrest, they are
also considering the person’s risk to public safety
and the likelihood that the person, if released, will
show up for their court appearances. This results
in release decisions based on reducing risk to
public and victim safety and increasing likelihood
of the arrestee appearing in court, not on access
to money. Release decisions based on access to
money rather than risk do not take into account
risk to the community/public safety or risk of non-
appearance at court.
Money bail is antithetical to
public safety.
Disturbingly, the majority of those arrested and
eligible for traditional money bail release
(because they were arrested for a serious or
violent crime) were determined to be medium-
to-high risk of committing a new offense: 52%,
compared to only 15% of those released under
PARP.
In fact, 18% of those persons eligible for
traditional money bail were at high risk of
reoffending, and many of whom were
rebooked after purchasing their release. This
last group includes people arrested for such
offenses as:
• Attempted murder;
• Robbery;
• Domestic battery or domestic violence;
• Assault with a deadly weapon; and
• Driving while under the influence and causing
injury to another person.
By statute, these individuals could buy their
freedom regardless of their risk to public safety
or non-appearance at court.
Those subject to MR who were identified
as medium-to-high risk were generally
temporarily held for arraignment:
• Of those arrestees subject to MR who were
temporarily held prior to arraignment, 71%
were medium-to-high risk.
Those subject to MR who were identified as
low risk were generally released:
• Of the people ordered released by a magistrate
judge, 85% were low risk.
• Of the people held for arraignment, only 29%
were low risk.
• Only two of those were rebooked for an
offense after being ordered released
subsequent to magistrate review.
A B
C D
CONCLUSION
The new PARP system appropriately and effectively balances the need for public safety with the constitutional rights
of the accused. In those cases in which PARPs apply, the vast majority of arrestees who are booked and assessed by
a magistrate judge as being a risk to public or victim safety, or unlikely to show up for court, are properly being
temporarily held until arraignment. Alternatively, where PARPs apply, most arrestees who are booked and assessed
as having little risk to the public or victim safety and likely to show up to court are being released.
Very low rearrests rates thus far are encouraging. During the sample period, an overwhelming majority of arrestees
booked into jail were not rearrested, and of those who were, about half were released on traditional money bail
(serious or violent offenses), not under the PARPs.
More law enforcement training may be needed. Data indicates that law enforcement is rarely availing themselves of
the bail deviation option of escalating CR or BR offenses to an MR if they believe the arrestee poses a significant
threat to public or victim safety or is a flight risk. When law enforcement invoked the bail deviation process, 98% of
the individuals were held, indicating that law enforcement, though rarely, is using the process appropriately. Low
usage of the bail deviation tool suggests that more training is needed to ensure law enforcement officers in the field
understand this option and use it appropriately.
Lastly, data indicates that traditional money bail is antithetical to public safety. Of concern is the fact that nearly half
the individuals arrested during the sample period were subject to traditional money bail, not PARP. Despite half of
that population having a medium-to-high risk of reoffending, all of those individuals had the option of paying their
way out of jail, regardless of their risk.
In conclusion, early data suggests the new PARP system is effective in protecting our communities and reducing
failures to appear. What is fundamental to the new PARP system is the recognition that release decisions should be
based on individualized assessments of an arrestee's risk to public and victim safety and likelihood of showing up to
court and not based on a person’s access to money. The Court remains committed to working collaboratively with
justice partners, including law enforcement, municipalities and elected officials, to continue to improve the new
system using data-informed decision-making tools and processes. The Court remains hopeful that over time,
leveraging the power of collaboration and data transparency will reinforce the inherent value of a pretrial release
system that does not condition release on access to financial resources, but rather on individual risk.
8
