The debate surrounding "zero bail" in Los Angeles County often lacks the necessary legal and procedural nuance. The term commonly used to describe the current policy is, in fact, the Los Angeles Superior Court’s comprehensive set of rules known as the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP). This framework represents a structural overhaul of pretrial detention practices, moving away from a system predicated on an arrestee’s ability to pay cash bail.
The core objective of PARP is to ensure that pretrial release decisions are based on an individualized assessment of risk, consistent with the California Constitution, which requires that individuals be released while awaiting trial except in very limited circumstances. The traditional constitutional purpose of bail is twofold: to secure the person’s appearance at all court proceedings and to mitigate risk to public and victim safety. PARP aligns with this purpose by shifting the determination of release status from monetary capacity - a wealth-based system - to a detailed assessment of flight risk and safety risk. The protocols became county-wide policy on October 1, 2023, and apply to all persons arrested in Los Angeles County.
The current policy framework is not a sudden mandate but the culmination of constitutional pressures and legal challenges over several years. The foundation for non-financial release was first tested during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Superior Court implemented an Emergency Bail Schedule (EBS) from April 2020 through July 2022. The EBS mandated a blanket bail amount of zero dollars ($0) for a large class of arrest offenses.
This initial emergency system differed significantly from the current PARP. The EBS was a broad, blanket measure that applied $0$ bail without considering individualized factors such as criminal history or prior failures to appear. When the statewide mandate expired, LA County eventually reverted to the standard cash bail schedule in July 2022. This reversion, however, was short-lived and faced immediate legal challenge.
The crucial turning point came in May 2023, when Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff issued a preliminary injunction. The ruling in Urquidi effectively barred the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) from enforcing secured money bail schedules against indigent arrestees. Judge Riff stated clearly that enforcing these schedules against poor people who are detained "solely for the reason of their poverty is a clear, pervasive, and serious constitutional violation". This decision compelled the county to reinstate a zero-cash bail framework, which shortly thereafter crystallized into the more permanent, structured, and constitutionally compliant Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP). The LA Court's adoption of PARP is therefore correctly understood not as a discretionary policy preference but as a judicial remedy necessary to resolve a systemic constitutional infirmity.
The legal framework for PARP is derived from a fundamental reinterpretation of due process and equal protection rights in the context of pretrial release, driven primarily by the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Humphrey.
California state law requires the Superior Court in each county to produce a uniform, county-wide Bail Schedule, specifying pre-determined conditions for release, which can be financial or non-financial. Crucially, the purpose of setting bail is narrowly confined to ensuring the arrested person appears for all subsequent court appearances and reducing risk to public and victim safety. The imposition of bail is not intended to be punitive.
California Penal Code §269b provides the statutory authority for local superior courts to set these release conditions. Under the former system, this schedule typically only listed monetary amounts associated with the alleged offense. However, the mandates of constitutional case law redefined the Superior Court’s responsibility.
The bedrock principle governing pretrial release in California is the fundamental due process right to pretrial liberty, which is not contingent on financial status. The landmark ruling of In re Humphrey established a framework for imposing bail that explicitly prohibits detention based solely on poverty. The court emphasized that pretrial liberty is the "norm, and detention... the carefully limited exception," aligning California practice with federal standards established in United States v. Salerno.
In re Humphrey requires courts to follow a mandatory two-part inquiry before imposing money bail:
Detaining an individual solely because they are unable to afford the set bail amount, despite bona fide efforts, constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on due process and equal protection rights against wealth-based detention. Therefore, the LA Superior Court’s adoption of PARP - which incorporates an immediate, pre-arraignment triage toward non-financial release - is the systemic mechanism designed to satisfy the Humphrey constitutional test before cash bail can even be considered for eligible offenses.
PARP establishes a uniform, county-wide set of procedures that all law enforcement agencies (LEA), including the LAPD and LASD, must follow upon making an arrest. These protocols set specific release conditions for non-serious and non-violent offenses, moving the decision-making authority for these cases away from arbitrary monetary amounts and toward established procedures or judicial review.
Under PARP, all persons arrested in Los Angeles County after October 1, 2023, for eligible offenses fall into one of five categories, three of which lead to non-financial pre-arraignment release :
For individuals released under the MR pathway, the process requires formal documentation to enforce the conditional terms set by the judge. When an arrestee is ordered released with specific conditions by a magistrate, they must agree to those conditions and sign a Conditional Release Form.
Law enforcement is responsible for printing this form, obtaining the arrestee's signature, providing the arrestee with a copy, and submitting the signed copy to the prosecutor. Importantly, the LEA must also prepare a standard Promise to Appear (PTA) document in addition to the conditional release form. This formal documentation establishes a legal basis for holding the individual accountable for their court dates and release terms.
The efficacy and constitutionality of PARP depend entirely on accurate definition of the arrest types eligible for non-financial release and strict adherence to statutory exclusions for violent offenses.
The PARP applies primarily to arrests for most misdemeanors and specific non-violent, non-serious felonies. For those arrested for these qualifying offenses, the bail is set at $0. The core legal intent is to remove the financial barrier for individuals accused of lower-level crimes, ensuring they are not incarcerated pretrial solely because they lack the funds to post bail.1
As of October 1, 2023, the protocols dictate that for approximately 60% of bookings in Los Angeles County, the offenses qualified for release under PARP protocols rather than traditional cash bail.5
California law and the Superior Court protocols maintain specific firewalls to ensure that the most serious offenders remain subject to detention or mandatory cash bail. These offenses are legally excluded from $0 bail and remain subject to traditional monetary bail amounts.
The primary statutory exclusion is mandated by Penal Code 1270.1, which includes most serious and violent felonies. The PARP system explicitly excludes charges involving:
This system ensures that PARP is not an automatic release mechanism for dangerous individuals. The exclusion of PC 1270.1 crimes demonstrates that PARP is a targeted reform aimed at addressing equity and flight risk for lower-level crimes, while preserving traditional methods of managing significant public safety threats.
Even if the underlying charge qualifies for PARP, certain individual circumstances may prevent an arrestee from receiving $0 bail release:
The key operational distinction between PARP and the failed Emergency Bail Schedule is the integration of individualized risk assessment, which is executed via the Pretrial Risk Evaluation Program (PREP) and constant magistrate review.
The LA Superior Court developed the Pretrial Risk Evaluation Program (PREP) as a computer program utilized by magistrates to conduct an individualized risk assessment for new bookings, particularly those designated for Magistrate Review (MR). This program allows the court to make data-driven, risk-based release decisions.
Under PARP, judges are accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, specifically to review cases and set conditions of release. This level of operational commitment is necessary to meet the procedural due process demands of In re Humphrey, ensuring that indigent individuals do not face prolonged detention simply because a judicial officer is unavailable.
When reviewing an arrestee via PREP, magistrate judges evaluate several factors to determine risk to public safety and the likelihood of court appearance :
Law enforcement agencies retain a critical role in petitioning for additional judicial oversight. If an arrest is initially categorized as CR or BR, but law enforcement possesses supplemental facts indicating that the arrestee poses an enhanced risk (e.g., they made specific threats after arrest that were not part of the initial charge), LEA may request a Bail Enhancement.
This request is quickly relayed to a Duty Magistrate Judge. If the request for enhancement is approved, the arrestee's case is reviewed by a magistrate and processed as an MR offense, allowing the judge to impose non-financial conditions or set a financial bail amount based on the individualized risk assessment. This adversarial opportunity ensures the system remains responsive to immediate public safety concerns that may not be captured by the standardized bail schedule.
Even under a system prioritizing non-financial release, specific mechanisms exist within the California Penal Code to temporarily suspend release or mandate detention, addressing concerns related to organized crime and severe danger.
California Penal Code §1275.1 provides a unique constraint on pretrial release that is independent of an arrestee’s flight risk or danger to the community. This provision allows a judge, prosecutor, or arresting officer to place a hold on bail - often referred to as a §1275.1 hold - if there is probable cause to believe that the funds or collateral used to secure release were derived from criminal activity.
The imposition of a § 1275.1 hold demands that the origin of the bail money be proven lawful before the defendant can be released. This hold is commonly seen in high-level financial crimes or organized criminal activity, including drug trafficking, money laundering, gang crimes, extortion, embezzlement, and felony grand theft. The effect of the hold is absolute: it suspends the bail process entirely. The arrestee cannot secure release, even if the scheduled bail is $0 or they possess the requisite funds, until the hold is legally lifted after the source of the funds is verified as legitimate. This statutory tool serves as an essential anti-money laundering and anti-organized crime defense mechanism within the pretrial system.
The most severe restriction on pretrial liberty is preventive detention, where a judge orders that a person is ineligible for any form of release, either via money bail or release with conditions. Under the current constitutional framework, this authority is strictly limited to the provisions of the California Constitution, Article I, Section 12, which permits bail denial only for a specific category of extremely serious offenses.
For offenses not falling under the defined bail-denial provisions, the courts must still navigate the requirements of In re Humphrey. While some judicial officers have interpreted Humphrey as providing "carte blanche" authority to deny bail to individuals deemed unreasonable risks to public safety, appellate decisions such as In re Brown have reinforced that lower courts must still make a genuine effort to consider non-financial conditions and the accused's financial capacity.
The implementation of PARP has ignited intense public debate regarding its impact on public safety. A nuanced evaluation requires separating the outcomes of the temporary blanket system (EBS) from the current risk-assessed system (PARP).
Official reports released by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County indicate that PARP has successfully advanced public safety while meeting constitutional demands. Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II reported that one year after implementation, the data remains clear: replacing wealth-based bail with individualized risk assessments has been beneficial.
The key metrics cited by the Court demonstrate the effectiveness of the risk-based approach:
Much of the public controversy surrounding "zero bail" stems from the conflation of the current risk-based PARP with the temporary, un-assessed Emergency Bail Schedule (EBS). The initial EBS, as a blanket order, applied zero bail regardless of criminal history. Certain studies evaluating non-individualized zero-bail policies claimed that those released on zero bail committed a higher percentage of new crimes than those who posted bail. For example, some data suggested an average 10 percentage point increase in the likelihood of a felony rearrest during the first year of EBS implementation.
However, the Los Angeles County system, as of October 2023, is explicitly designed to overcome the structural failures of the blanket approach. PARP mandates that judges use individualized assessment - incorporating criminal history and failure-to-appear history - when setting conditions. The LA Superior Court’s report of a 10% reduction in new criminal activity under PARP confirms that the success of bail reform hinges entirely on the integration of a rigorous, data-driven, individualized risk evaluation tool like PREP.
Furthermore, policy evaluations studying the period between July 2022 and May 2023 demonstrated the counterproductive nature of reverting to cash bail. The return to the standard bail schedule increased the average daily jail population but did not result in a reduction in crime. This evidence supports the judicial determination that for lower-level offenses, cash bail is primarily a tool for swelling pretrial detention numbers without contributing to enhanced public safety.
To foster public trust and allow continuous legal and policy review, the LA Superior Court has launched a comprehensive, real-time data dashboard dedicated to the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols. This PARP Dashboard is available on the Court's official website and provides detailed statistics on the outcomes of pre-arraignment release decisions made by judges. This commitment to data transparency ensures that justice partners and the public can track metrics associated with the shift away from wealth-based detention toward an equitable, constitutionally sound, risk-based system.
The Los Angeles Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP) are not merely a policy experiment but a necessary institutional response to constitutional mandates, particularly those set forth by In re Humphrey. By replacing the standard, wealth-dependent bail schedule for non-serious offenses with a structured system of pre-arraignment triage (CR, BR, MR) and individualized risk assessment (PREP), the Superior Court has achieved a pretrial system that better aligns with the principle that detention should not be imposed based solely on an individual's financial status.
The complexity of PARP, however, introduces new challenges for legal representation. The process involves multiple points of potential intervention: the initial determination of CR/BR status, the detailed risk assessment by the magistrate in MR cases, and the potential for a law enforcement-initiated Bail Enhancement Request based on supplemental facts. Furthermore, the independent threat of a Penal Code §1275.1 hold remains a powerful judicial tool to suspend release when illegal funds are suspected.
For individuals navigating this system, experienced legal counsel is essential. Effective advocacy requires a precise understanding of the PARP matrix, the specific factors evaluated by PREP, and the appropriate procedural mechanisms available to challenge or support a pre-arraignment release determination. The modern pretrial system in Los Angeles demands legal expertise that extends beyond simply posting bail to include rigorous pre-arraignment advocacy focused on risk mitigation and constitutional compliance.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws can change, and readers should always consult a qualified attorney regarding their specific situation. Last updated November 2025. Reviewed by legal professionals at The H Law Group.
Yes, an arrestee can be temporarily held even if their offense is categorized for 0 bail if a Penal Code §1275.1 hold is placed . This hold, which can be initiated by a judge, prosecutor, or arresting officer, is placed when there is probable cause to believe that the funds or collateral used to secure release were derived from criminal activity . Such holds are common in cases involving illicit funds, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, gang crimes, or grand theft . The imposition of a §1275.1 hold effectively suspends the bail process, requiring the defendant to prove the source of the bail money is lawful before any release can be secured .
For certain offenses designated for Magistrate Review (MR), an on-call judge utilizes the Pretrial Risk Evaluation Program (PREP), a computer program developed by the Los Angeles Superior Court, to conduct an individualized risk assessment. Magistrates are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for this purpose . The factors considered during this review, consistent with constitutional mandates, include :
