Challenging the Riverside County Bail Process

Sandoval v. Riverside County et al.

In May 2025, individuals detained in Riverside County jails filed a class action lawsuit challenging Riverside County’s cash-based jailing of individuals between their arrest and first court hearing, as well as Riverside County’s unnecessary delay of that hearing. Rabbi David Lazar and Reverend Jane Quandt chose to join this lawsuit because they view cash-based jailing as unconscionable. The lawsuit was filed against Riverside County Superior Court, Riverside County, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chad Bianco.

The complaint alleges that every day in Riverside County, individuals—who have not been convicted of any crimes, are presumed innocent, and are not yet represented by counsel—are confined in Riverside jails, based solely on their inability to pay arbitrary, pre-set bail amounts. Individuals that cannot pay the pre-set bail amounts remain in jail until their first court hearing, which for no good reason often does not occur until four or five days after their arrest. These individuals are not detained because they have been determined to be too dangerous to release. They simply do not have the resources to pay for their freedom. California courts have repeatedly found this practice patently unconstitutional. For example, in a similar lawsuit in Los Angeles (Urquidi v. City of Los Angeles) a judge ruled that LA’s bail schedule system, which was almost identical to Riverside County’s, was unconstitutional. Yet, the complaint alleges that the Riverside County defendants continue to violate the Constitution and hold individuals in the second-deadliest jail system in the country solely because they cannot afford to pay money bail.

Cash-based bail policies like those in Riverside County are not simply unconstitutional. They also inflict severe and lasting harm on the individuals detained, their families, and their communities. Families are separated. Jailed individuals often lose their jobs and housing. Importantly, multiple scientific studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, cash-based bail policies actually increase, rather than decrease, crime and do not increase the likelihood that individuals will appear in court for further hearings. In fact, in Urquidi, the court noted that all evidence pointed to pretrial detention being “criminogenic”: it causes more crime by destabilizing people’s lives. Many jurisdictions in California and other states have chosen to follow the law and have implemented pretrial release programs that do not depend on individuals’ ability to pay. These programs have proven to be much more effective than cash-based bail policies in improving public safety and appearance rates.

In October 2025, a judge denied two demurrers to a complaint challenging the county’s cash-based jailing of individuals between their arrest and first court hearing, as well as its unnecessary delay of that hearing. The court ruled that the arguments raised by defendants Riverside County Superior Court, County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chad Bianco were without merit and that each and every one of the plaintiffs’ claims against them could proceed. The court’s opinion paves the way for a hearing to be held on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

On Jan 28, 2026, an Orange County Superior Court judge enjoined Riverside County, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chad Bianco, stopping them from jailing people arrested on lower-level charges before they have a court hearing simply because they cannot pay money bail.

Media Coverage:

Partners:

Filings: