Earlier this year, the California Legislature passed SB-10, a bill that will, beginning in October of 2019, eliminate cash bail in favor of a system purporting to detain people according to their risk of re-offense or fleeing from trial.
The abuses of the cash bail system are well known. Bail amounts are set without regard to the actual risk an accused person presents, poor people often are unable to raise even the required 10%, that same 10%, as it is non-refundable, can often tip a poor family into a downward spiral, excessive pre-trial detention is used buy prosecutors as a cudgel to get guilty pleas, and so much more. The overall effect of the cash bail system is also highly racially discriminatory, with proportionally far many more people of color detained before trial than white folks. However, there is always a way to make a bad situation worse.
SB-10 began as an honest attempt to address these problems, and replace them with a more just system. However, massive revisions were made to SB-10 a mere three days before passage. These revisions caused many organizations, including the ACLU and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice to withdraw their support for the bill, citing its potential to vastly increase pre-trial detention in California. (The Criminal Justice Committee has analyzed SB-10, and prepared a diagram of the process it envisions.)
In 2017, Christopher White was standing by his truck in Encinitas when his friend Jeremy Owens assaulted a local woman, grabbing her by the neck and beginning to pull her to the truck. By his own account, he yelled at Owens to stop. Owens stopped, and as the girl fled, Mr White yelled “Go in the house!” His friend got in the truck, and the two men drove away.
Over that weekend, Mr White tried to convince Owens to turn himself in, and discussed with other friends Owens’ need for counseling.
The San Diego County DA’s Office charged White with attempted rape and kidnapping. He was denied bail, on the grounds that he was a danger to society. He was also offered a plea deal which included three years of unsupervised probation.
In Re White
A member of our Branch’s Criminal Justice Committee recently attended a meeting at the League of Women Voters, and got a chance to discuss White’s case (called “In Re White”; text of brief here) with his defense attorney, Laura Schaefer.
Schaefer explained that California is actually in a bit of a confusion around bail. Cash bail (non-excessive cash bail) has been a right of California citizens under Section 12 of the California Constitution since before the turn of the last Century. However, in the ecstasy of punitive spirit so common after the Civil Rights movement (and so often used to subvert the gains of that movement), multiple ballot initiatives weakened the right to release under Section 12. Parts of the first measure were found in conflict with Section 12, but others were allowed to stand, and then the whole thing was relied on in another amendment, and SB-10’s vast apparatus of pre-trial detention is the latest bill to build upon this foundation.
Schaefer’s argument consists of two major points:
- Denying White’s bail was prosecutorial overreach and nonsensical on its face, as the DA’s Office simultaneously argued that White was too dangerous to be release before trial, but offered him a deal recognizing that he was not dangerous enough to even warrant supervision if he plead guilty.
- The initiatives that weakened Section 12 did so implicitly only, and the only correct way to amend section 12 is to do so explicitly. Therefore, Section 12 still should apply in full.
If Schaefer were to win her case, those portions of SB-10 that build upon the ballot initiatives (namely, the pre-trial detention provisions, NOT the release-without-bail provisions) would be void, and cash bail would continue in California past October 2019.
There is a companion case to In Re White, called Humphrey, that specifically addresses excessive bail as unconstitutional under Section 12. It could also invalidate much of SB-10.
Arguments are ongoing before the California Supreme Court.
Interested in Criminal Justice?
Get involved with our Criminal Justice Committee; email [email protected] for more information.
In September, Ms. Donna Tripi, Principal of La Jolla Elementary School, sent an e-mail Blast in which she warned parents to be “vigilant” regarding a man thought to be an “African American male.” On Monday of this week Ms. Tripi issued an apology. The apology is as disturbing as the original e-mail message.
She repeats the description of “the Man,” mentioning his race, but not that of the parents, the children, or her race. This repetition reinforces the idea that these parents, their children, and all who read the communication have something to fear from African American males.
The passive voice used in the “apology” conveys the writer’s unwillingness to take full responsibility for perpetuating racist stereotypes about African American males. One wonders what she is apologizing for when she writes, “I spoke to the parents directly and am confident the concern they described was not imagined.” What concern did they describe? That they were uncomfortable being in the presence of African American men? This self described “leader” issues an apology in which she reiterates that, “We want parents to be vigilant, . . . .” A so called “apology” in which one reiterates the need for vigilance (“watching for possible danger”) in the presence of African American males, and in the context of an event in which the subject is supposedly an African American male, is no apology at all. It is continued race baiting.
Ms. Tripi says clearly in her original e-Blast from La Jolla Elementary School that “nothing happened due to the vigilance of the parent, . . . .” This outrageous assumption that there was some danger that this parent had to fear is what deserves an authentic apology. The fourth bullet in the e-Blast from La Jolla Elementary School is especially disturbing: “If you see something that doesn’t feel right, report it to the non-emergency police line . . . .” Ms. Tripi should understand that with this direction, she is contributing to countless more individuals not feeling right in the presence of African American males. Moreover, she can be assured that many more innocent African American males and females will have unpleasant encounters with police officers inquiring about their innocent, lawful behaviors because someone was uncomfortable with them just living their lives.
We continue to be disturbed by the last line of the e-Blast from La Jolla Elementary School: “We’re all hoping it was an isolated incident, but reminders are always helpful.” AN ISOLATED INCIDENT OF WHAT? Seeing an African American male? We can assure Ms. Tripi that she and her constituents will see many more African American males—and they may be wearing hoodies—and Ms. Tripi and all readers of her communications have no more to fear from African American males than they do from white males in hoodies—or suits and ties.
Dear Members and Friends,
The crime of lynching continued even after slavery had been abolished as the ultimate expression of racism and hatred in the United States following Reconstruction. For over a century, it has been used to kill, terrorize and intimidate African Americans and the communities in which we live. It is a horrific form of torture, murder, and intimidation and domestic terrorism.
Senators Kamala Harris (CA), Cory Booker (NJ), and Tim Scott (SC) and Congressman Bobby Rush (IL), along with 28 of his colleagues in the House of Representatives have introduced the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act, S. 3178 / HR 6086 in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. This urgent legislation would make lynching a hate crime, therefore eligible for the additional federal tools and resources used to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. We need this legislation if we are going to seriously address this form of domestic terrorism.
The Senate bill, S. 3178 was approved of unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee on 10/11/2018 and it is the urgent hope of the NAACP that it will move through the Senate and the House and then be signed into law quickly after the election during the “lame duck” session.
For more information, as well as information on how you can become an advocate, please read the attached Action Alert.
HOW YOU CAN ADVOCATE:
- Email your Senators and tell them to support the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act
- Call your Senators now at 202-224-3121
San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan, in a move that saddened many and surprised few, declined to file charges against the National City Police Officers who failed to protect Mr Earl McNeil while he was in their custody. Along with her announcement of non-action, some of the video footage and other documentation has now been released. Ms Stephan evidently believes the level of indifference to human life and dignity it shows does not rise to a criminal level, regardless of what contribution it may have made to Mr McNeil’s death.
Community Activists, led by Ms Tasha Williamson, disagree with Ms Stephan’s lack of action, and vow to continue to advocate for justice for Mr McNeil.
The San Diego NAACP is pleased to announce two additional individuals to be honored at the Freedom Fund Dinner on October 12, 2018:
– The Honorable Xavier Becerra, Calfornia Attorney General
– Eric Rivera, Vice President for Student Affairs at San Diego State University.
On January 24, 2017, Xavier Becerra was sworn in as the 33rd Attorney General of the State of California, and is the first Latino to hold the office in the history of the state.
The State’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Becerra has decades of experience serving the people of California through appointed and elected office, where he has fought for working families, the vitality of the Social Security and Medicare programs and issues to combat poverty among the working poor. He has also championed the state’s economy by promoting and addressing issues impacting job generating industries such as health care, clean energy, technology, and entertainment.
Attorney General Becerra previously served 12 terms in Congress as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. While in Congress, Attorney General Becerra was the first Latino to serve as a member of the powerful Committee on Ways And Means, served as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, and was Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security.
Prior to serving in Congress, Attorney General Becerra served one term in the California Legislature as the representative of the 59th Assembly District in Los Angeles County. He is a former Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice. The Attorney General began his legal career in 1984 working in a legal services office representing the mentally ill.
Born in Sacramento, California, Attorney General Becerra is the son of working-class parents and was the first in his family to receive a four-year degree, earning his Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Stanford University. He earned his Juris Doctorate from Stanford Law School. His mother was born in Jalisco, Mexico and immigrated to the United States after marrying his father. He is married to Dr. Carolina Reyes, and they are the proud parents of three daughters: Clarisa, Olivia and Natalia.
For nearly three decades, Eric Rivera has dedicated his life to advancing access, student success and achievement for all students in higher education. Mr. Rivera’s career in higher education spanned four institutions across the country and two of the largest state university systems in the nation (California State University and State University of New York). For the last 22 years, he served the community of San Diego through his work at San Diego State University (SDSU), most currently as their Vice President for Student Affairs.
Born and raised in the Bronx in New York City to immigrant parents who did not speak English, Mr. Rivera was the first in his family to go away and graduate from college. As a first-generation college student, he experienced firsthand the complexity and challenges of navigating college, facing obstacles his peers didn’t experience. This experience formed the foundation of his motivation to ensuring all students have the capital when entering college, and the importance of aligning campus resources with student access and student success strategies.
As Vice President for Student Affairs at SDSU, Mr. Rivera is responsible for the strategic planning and analysis of the division and has direct oversight for administering the division’s $60-million budget. Under his leadership, the division of Student Affairs significantly expanded learning communities and student support centers – such as the Black Resource Center, Commuter Resource Center, the Pride Center, Women’s Resource Center, and the Undocumented Resource Area. Mr. Rivera built the nationally recognized Aztec Parents Program which connects families to the university through meaningful programs, and established SDSU as a national leader in parent programs, alongside Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley, according to publications like the Los Angeles Times.
During Mr. Rivera’s time at SDSU, the university has grown from a regional university into one that is nationally recognized for its mission of access; academic and research excellence; and global focus. Mr. Rivera has played important roles in developing transformational educational opportunities, enhancing and expanding the campus’s physical landscape, and leveraging SDSU’s rich diversity to maximize the personal and academic success of all students. These efforts contributed to raising retention and graduation rates for all students while nearly eliminating achievement gaps among ethnic and racial groups. The university was recognized by The Education Trust as one of only 26 universities in the country that have increased graduation rates for all students while nearly eliminating achievement gaps among ethnic and racial groups.
At SDSU, while the overall graduation rate is 75.3%, African American students are graduating at 72.0%; Latino students at 72.5%; and low-income first-generation students in the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) are graduating at 71.1%. Most recently, SDSU was named a Top 100 degree producer by Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, ranking No. 17th, recognizing the institution’s strengths in supporting and graduating minority students. The Top 100 report is the only national report on the awarding of degrees to African American, Asian American, Hispanic and Native American students at U.S. universities and colleges.
Mr. Rivera’s professional affiliations include National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Council for the Advancement & Support of Education (CASE), Association for the Study of Higher Education, and Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities (ASHE & HACU). He served on NASPA’s Latino Knowledge Community Advisory Board and Minority Undergraduate Fellows Program Advisory Board.
In addition to his professional associations, Mr. Rivera is very active in the community. He was a member of the San Diego Community College Trustee’s Advisory Board and the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Planning Group. Mr. Rivera was appointed by the Mayor and City Council to the San Diego Convention Center Corporation Board of Directors from 2002 through 2006; and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Education Committee during 2003-2004. He also currently sits on the San Diego Gas and Electric Advisory Board.
Mr. Rivera was honored with an SDSU Presidential Top 25 Award in 2007 and again in 2010. He was the recipient of an Abrazo award in 2010. He was also the recipient of the NASPA Latino Knowledge Community’s Outstanding Senior Student Affairs Officer Award in March 2007.
Yesterday, Captain Jason Penner of the El Cajon Area CHP came to speak to our General Membership meeting. He was gracious and accommodating and said many things that are considered the very soundest of police practices.
Asked if there was anything he wished to say to those of you who may have missed the meeting, he said:
The CHP and the CHP in El Cajon is committed to building trust within the communities we serve.
Several of the questions we asked required further research to answer, and Mr Penner was very prompt with his answers, below.
First of all, thanks again for allowing me the time to answer questions at your meeting last night. I wanted to follow-up with answers to some of the questions I was asked last night to make sure I was giving accurate information.
– Online complaints can be done at the following link. https://www.chp.ca.gov/notify-chp
– To accommodate people who may feel uneasy talking to a uniformed sergeant we can (and normally do) handle complaints over the phone. They may also file a complaint online. Online complaints go to CHP headquarters, who then route it to me personally and I assign a sergeant to investigate it. This would be the best way for someone who is uneasy dealing with a uniformed employee. If they requested it in the complaint I could also arrange a face-to-face meeting with a sergeant who would be dressed in plain clothes.
Racial Breakdown of the El Cajon Area CHP Uniformed Personnel
– 1 Captain (Caucasian)
– 2 Lieutenants (1 Hispanic 1 Caucasian)
– 10 sergeants (6 Caucasian 4 Hispanic)
– 91 officers (66 Caucasion, 22 Hispanic, 1 Asian, 2 African Americans)
– We have quarterly diversity training that all uniformed personnel are required to attend
– We all just completed Racial Profiling training that all uniformed personnel are required to attend
– This is a number that I am unable to get accurate numbers on as we don’t log previous employment experience in personnel files.
– To address the concern from the lady that said the military changed her and made her aggressive, we monitor closely use of force incidents. All use of force is required to be reported to a sergeant, who then generates a report. I personally review all use of force reports, which includes me watching the Mobil Video Audio Recording System. I am well aware of the concern of the public over use of force and I closely monitor it to ensure it was within our policy. Our use of force policy has been accredited through CALEA.
– The CHP created the Mental Illness Response Program which created Crisis Intervention Training
– The objective is to stabilize the crisis and get the consumer to the appropriate resource for care
The CHP has a Citizen’s Advisory Board in Sacramento. It serves as an advisory body to the Commissioner with the primary purpose of providing objective review and input concerning departmental policies, procedures, training, reporting, and controls to determine consistency with the demands of public safety as well as legal, moral, and public expectations. Areas of concerns may include, but are not limited to:
– Use of force
– Citizens’ complaint investigations
– Equal Employment Opportunity issues
– Management and supervisory practices
– Personnel practices including selection and hiring procedures
– Public perception/image.
I hope this answers all the questions that I didn’t have complete answers for last night. If I’m missing any or if anyone has any other questions please just let me know. And if you’d ever like to have me back to field more questions or if I can help with anything else please just let me know.
Also, please follow our facebook page, at www.facebook.com/chp.elcajon!
Captain Jason Penner
El Cajon Area CHP
1722 East Main Street
El Cajon, CA 92021
Our Criminal Justice Committee plans to follow up with Captain Penner for a more in-depth conversation and information exchange.
We are very grateful to Captain Penner for his time and eagerness to connect with us.
At tonight’s General Membership Meeting, we have four agenda items:
- Upcoming branch elections
- Matter concerning the Superior Court
- Captain Penner of the El Cajon California Highway Patrol (CHP) will talk briefly about “What the El Cajon California Highway Patrol can do to improve trust with the public” and will answer questions that the membership may have.
See you tonight at 6pm, at the Joe & Vi Jacobs Center, 404 Euclid Ave!
At the August 16 Executive Committee Meeting, Dr Branch appointed and the Committee confirmed our First Vice President, Mr Clovis Honoré, as (Interim! Interim!) Chair of the branch’s Criminal Justice Committee. Members who were appointed include:
- Steve Dorner
- Ross Naismith
- Renita Payno
- Amy Zamudio
The current focus of the Committee’s work is Police Violence.
On July 9, 2018, President Trump announced that he would nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. After thorough research and evaluation the NAACP opposes his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court now.
In 2005, despite the opposition of the NAACP, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be a judge on the he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On almost every issue imaginable, Judge Kavanaugh has proven us right to have opposed him; in fact, in both his decisions and his dissents, Judge Kavanaugh has proven himself to be even more of a problematic extremist than we anticipated. On the issue of gun violence protection, health care, workers’ rights, voting rights, affirmative action, and many more that are important to the NAACP, Brett Kavanaugh has proven that he is no friend of the NAACP.
This nomination is too important to rush. This nomination should only be considered by the Senate elected by the American people in November, 2018, when they are fully aware of the stakes and after the 116th Congress is sworn in. The Court is meant to be an unbiased guardian of rights and liberties of all Americans. The country desperately needs a fair-minded and independent jurist on the Supreme Court, not a divisive and biased ideologue who will further shake the public’s faith in our nation’s justice system. The constitutional process for appointing and confirming the next justice must be thoughtful, careful, deliberative, and conducted with well-informed bipartisan support. The Senate should not consider a nominee until a new Senate is seated next year, after the results of the midterm election are in place. This will fully allow the American people, those who will be most affected by the confirmation, to truly have a voice in the selection of the nominee.
Please call both your Senators and urge them to vote “no” on this confirmation, sand to wait until January, 2019 before making such an important decision.
For more information as about the situation, or to find out how to contact your Senators, read the attached Action Alert.
Thank you for all you do,