Ruling links bail, suspects’ finances
Ability to pay must be considered, judge says in Dutchess County case
POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. » A judge has ruled that when setting bail, courts in Dutchess County must consider the ability of the accused to pay the amount, saying that not to violates the state and federal constitutional right to equal protection.
“While imposing bail under appropriate circumstances clearly serves an important and perhaps even compelling governmental objective, the failure to consider the economic status of a defendant does not serve that interest nor does the consideration of economic status impede that interest,” state Supreme Court Justice Maria G. Rosa wrote in her Jan. 31 ruling. “Therefore ... the failure to consider a defendant’s financial situation when imposing bail violates that defendant’s right to equal protection.”
The New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed suit on behalf of LaGrange resident Christopher Kunkeli, hailed the ruling as a step to-
ward fixing a criminal justice system that it says discriminates against the poor.
“This ruling is an encouraging step towards ensuring that our justice system treats everyone equally,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. “The basic right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty should not be contingent on the size of someone’s wallet.”
“This ruling, which applies
to bail practices across Dutchess County, is a welcome step forward,” said Philip Desgranges, a senior staff attorney with the NYCLU who represented the organization in the proceeding. “We plan to use this ruling, as well as other advocacy and litigation efforts, to extend reforms to bail practices statewide.”
Dutchess County District Attorney William Grady, whose office defended the bail in the Kunkeli case, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Kunkeli was charged in October 2017 with misdemeanor
petit larceny for allegedly stealing a $60 vacuum cleaner from a Target store. He was sent to the Dutchess County Jail on $5,000 bail by Poughkeepsie Town Justice Paul Sullivan and remained in the jail for three months, until pleading guilty in January.
In court proceedings in the lawsuit in January, Senior Assistant District Attorney Bridge Rahilly argued that Sullivan considered a number of factors in setting bail, including Kunkeli’s past criminal history, that he had failed to show up for court appearances
on at least two occasions, that “a number of bench warrants” had been issued for Kunkeli in the past, and that Kunkeli had been out of jail for only about seven weeks at the time of his arrest for the Target theft.
Rahilly also said there is no requirement that judges consider ability to pay when setting bail and argued that the issue is one that needs to be resolved by legislation.
Rosa said she was ruling only on the judge’s failure to consider whether Kunkeli had the ability to pay the bail that was set.
She said there was no
question that setting the bail without considering Kunkeli’s ability to pay violated the defendant’s right to equal protection under the law.
“Clearly, $5000.00 bail to someone earning $10,000.00 per year, like (Kunkeli), without significant assets, is much more of an impediment to freedom than $5000.00 bail would be to a defendant earning substantially more and/or with significant assets,” the judge wrote. “Setting that sum as to both such individuals would not be equal treatment.”
Rosa also rejected Rahilly’s
argument that the court should let the state Legislature decide the issue, saying that even if it acted immediately, no changes would take effect until 2019.
“In the interim, thousands of individuals will be in a similar situation as (Kunkeli) was at his arraignment,” she wrote.
In his State of the State address last month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called for the elimination of monetary bail for misdemeanor and nonviolent felony offenders, saying the existing system places an unfair burden on the poor.