Buffin et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al, No. 4:2015cv04959 - Document 372 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until eighteen (18) months after the terms of this Injunction go into full effect. Compliance hearing is set for 11/22/2019 09:01 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Joint statement with status update filed by 11/15/2019. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/3/2019. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Buffin et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al Doc. 372 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 RIANA BUFFIN, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-cv-04959-YGR Plaintiffs, 9 FINAL JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION vs. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., Defendants. 12 13 On March 4, 2019, this Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary 14 Judgment holding that Sheriff Vicki Hennessy’s use of the San Francisco Felony and 15 Misdemeanor Bail Schedule (“Bail Schedule”) to determine pretrial release violates the Due 16 Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution (“March 4 Order”). (Dkt. 17 No. 314.) 18 Thereafter, and based upon the real parties-in-interest’s request and considerations of 19 federalism, the Court allowed those parties time to resolve the action with a global comprehensive 20 solution. On Friday, August 30, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a 21 settlement as to the appropriate remedy to be imposed in this case except for two outstanding 22 issues. (Dkt. No. 368.) Attaching a heavily-negotiated “Stipulated Final Judgment Remedying 23 Constitutional Violations,” the parties agreed, in summary, to an injunction prohibiting the use of 24 the Bail Schedule, detailed modifications of the procedures for pretrial release as a plausible 25 alternative to the current use of the Bail Schedule, and to monitoring for an effective period of 26 eighteen (18) months. (Id.) 27 28 On Tuesday, September 03, 2019, the parties appeared before the Court regarding the settlement and the outstanding issues. First, plaintiffs argued that the Court should include the Dockets.Justia.com 1 proposed provision which allows arrestees charged with offenses enumerated in California Penal 2 Code section 1270.1(a) to have the right to submit an application under section 1269c seeking own 3 recognizance release prior to arraignment. The Sheriff took no position on the issue. Second, the 4 parties confirmed that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs should come later after a motion and 5 further negotiation. 6 7 of federalism, good cause, and pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the Court FINDS that the 8 additional proposed procedures are appropriate as part of a plausible alternative to the 9 constitutional violation and the Court HEREBY ADJUDGES as follows: 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Accordingly, to effectuate the March 4 Order, and based upon previous briefing, principles (I) The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (hereafter “Sheriff”) is enjoined from 11 using the Bail Schedule, or any form or derivative thereof that requires or has as its 12 effect that the existence and duration of pre-arraignment detention is determined by 13 an arrestee’s ability to pay. 14 (II) For all arrestees booked on an offense not enumerated in California Penal Code 15 § 1270.1(a), and who are arrested without a warrant and are not otherwise ineligible 16 for pre-arraignment OR release under state law: 17 (A) The arrestee’s PSA Report, along with all other portions of the OR Workup 18 reasonably available to the OR Project, shall be submitted to the San 19 Francisco Superior Court within eight (8) hours from the time of booking.1 (B) 20 The Sheriff shall release the arrestee at eighteen (18) hours from the time of booking if: (1) the Superior Court has not rendered a decision on OR release 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 For purposes of this Stipulated Judgment, “Own Recognizance” or “OR” release refers to any release not conditioned on payment of bail, and includes releases subject to any nonfinancial conditions. The OR Workup refers to the report created by the OR Project of the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (hereafter, “OR Project”) which contains the arrestee’s criminal history, the police report, a cover sheet, and the PSA Report. “Booking” refers to the time that ID confirmation for an arrestee is received. The Sheriff shall maintain all reasonable procedures to ensure that ID confirmation is received as swiftly as possible. To the extent circumstances beyond the OR Project’s or the Sheriff’s control render the completion of the PSA Report impossible within eight (8) hours, the OR Project will exercise best efforts to complete the PSA Report as soon as feasible. The automatic release provision of Section II does not apply in cases where the OR Project has been unable to complete the PSA Report for reasons beyond the OR Project’s or the Sheriff’s control. 2 1 at that time (which decision shall otherwise control) and (2) the PSA Report 2 for the arrestee does not indicate “release not recommended.” (C) United States District Court Northern District of California 3 Release pursuant to this Section shall treat as binding the recommendation 4 of the PSA Report as to any conditions of release, and release procedures 5 shall be carried out as if the release recommendations in the PSA Report 6 had been adopted by the Superior Court. No arrestee shall be entitled to 7 release without signing an agreement to be bound by the conditions of 8 release contained in the PSA Report’s recommendation. An arrestee who is 9 being released subject to recommended Assertive Case Management 10 (ACM) procedures by the OR Project shall not be released from custody 11 before completing any procedures necessary to implementing the release 12 conditions. 13 (III) For all arrestees booked on an offense enumerated in California Penal Code 14 § 1270.1(a), for whom pre-arraignment OR release is not available under current 15 law, the provisions of Section II shall not apply. 16 (IV) The procedures for seeking alterations on release, as currently reflected in 17 California Penal Code § 1269c, shall be modified as follows: 18 (A) For all arrestees booked on an offense not enumerated in California Penal 19 Code § 1270.1(a), a peace officer who (1) has reasonable cause to believe 20 that an arrestee may not appear at arraignment, or poses a threat to public 21 safety, or (2) expects that specific information not yet provided will be 22 delivered within the next twelve (12) hours and will probably provide 23 reasonable cause to believe that an arrestee may not appear at arraignment, 24 or poses a threat to public safety, shall prepare a declaration under penalty 25 of perjury setting forth the facts and circumstances in support of his or her 26 belief and file it with a magistrate or commissioner. Such a declaration may 27 be filed at any point throughout the 18-hour period referenced in Section II, 28 and will, without further judicial action, serve to extend the 18-hour period 3 by an additional twelve (12) hours. 1 (B) 2 3 Code § 1270.1(a), the arrestee or their attorney, friend or family member 4 shall have the right to submit an application under California Penal Code 5 § 1269c to the magistrate or commissioner seeking a swifter judicial 6 decision than the automatic 18-hour release provision provided for in 7 Section II. Such an application shall not alter the obligation in Section II.A. (C) 8 For all arrestees booked on an offense enumerated in California Penal Code § 1270.1(a), the arrestee or their attorney, friend or family member shall 9 United States District Court Northern District of California For all arrestees booked on an offense not enumerated in California Penal 10 have the right to submit an application under California Penal Code § 1269c 11 to the magistrate or commissioner seeking OR release prior to arraignment. 12 (V) The obligations of this Stipulated Judgment are conditioned on the enactment of 13 legislation by the City and County of San Francisco approving the Stipulated 14 Judgment and providing additional funding to enable the OR Project to operate 15 twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The Sheriff shall expend all 16 reasonable efforts to seek a final vote on the enactment of such legislation within 17 ninety (90) days of entry of this Stipulated Judgment. The Stipulated Judgment 18 shall take full effect ninety (90) days after the enactment of such legislation. If the 19 City and County of San Francisco has, notwithstanding the Sheriff’s efforts, not 20 enacted such legislation within ninety (90) days of entry of this Stipulated 21 Judgment, the Stipulated Judgment shall be vacated, and unless the parties jointly 22 notify the Court that they have agreed to extend the time, the Court shall issue its 23 own final judgment in this matter. 24 25 (VI) The parties shall separately file, and the Court shall separately rule, on the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs. 26 (VII) The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until eighteen (18) months after 27 the terms of this injunction go into full effect pursuant to Section V, and Plaintiffs 28 shall be provided comprehensive reports every three (3) months in order to monitor 4 1 the Sheriff’s compliance with this Stipulated Judgment and its efficacy at 2 remedying the constitutional harm, and to bring matters to the Court’s attention as 3 appropriate. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith so as to ensure the 4 reports provided are sufficient for such monitoring purposes. The Sheriff will 5 make good faith efforts to begin to gather data regarding time of arraignment for all 6 arrestees. The reports are currently expected to include: 7 Data regarding arrestees’ initiation of booking, charges, time of ID 8 Confirmation, and time of PSA Report submission and OR Workup 9 submission(s); 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Data regarding PSA Report recommendations; Data regarding the operation of Section II, including but not limited to data 12 regarding the arrestees deemed ineligible for pre-arraignment release pursuant 13 to Section II.B; 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Data regarding OR judicial decisions; Data regarding all automatic releases pursuant to Section II; Data regarding individual arrestees’ total length of incarceration and the manner and timing of any release; Data regarding the number of affidavits submitted by peace officers pursuant to Section IV.A, including information on timing; Data regarding the number of applications submitted on behalf of arrestees 21 pursuant to Sections IV.B and IV.C, including information on timing and 22 ultimate determinations, to the extent such information (if any) is available. 23 The first report shall include data from the year prior, including and up to the first 24 three months from the date the provisions of this Order become operative and shall 25 be due thirty (30) days after the expiration of that period, with additional reports to 26 be filed every three months thereafter. This provision imposes no obligation except 27 as to data in the possession of the Sheriff or the OR Project, or reasonably available 28 to them, and shall not require the provision of data other than is maintained or will 5 be maintained in the ordinary course of business. 1 2 (VIII) This Stipulated Judgment is intended to address the timing of release decisions pre- 3 arraignment and is not otherwise intended to interfere with changes to the processes 4 by which the Superior Court makes release determinations, including changes to 5 the way in which risk assessments are conducted or by which entity they are 6 conducted. Nothing in this Stipulated Judgment shall prevent the Sheriff from 7 releasing any person subject to terms of pretrial release who has received an 8 individualized determination by a judicial officer. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 (IX) To the extent the Superior Court, California legislature, or any other entity seeks to 10 implement material changes that may implicate the terms of this Stipulated 11 Judgment or the pre-arraignment processes set forth herein, including to the manner 12 in which high risk arrestees may be identified by the PSA Report for the purposes 13 of the exception to the automatic release provisions of Section II.B, the parties shall 14 meet and confer over potential alterations to the terms of this Stipulated Judgment 15 and thereafter notify this Court of any joint proposal or inability to reach 16 agreement, which may include petitioning the Court to dissolve or modify the 17 Stipulated Judgment. 18 A compliance hearing shall be held on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar on Friday, 19 November 22, 2019, in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street 20 in Oakland, California. Five (5) business days prior to the date of the compliance hearing, the 21 parties shall file a joint statement providing the Court with a status update. If compliance is 22 complete, the parties need not appear, and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar.2 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: September 3, 2019 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 26 27 28 2 Defendant-Intervenor California Bail Agents Association’s request for entry of judgment (Dkt. No. 326) is hereby TERMINATED as MOOT. 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
