{"id":21,"date":"2026-04-30T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=21"},"modified":"2026-04-30T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T12:00:00","slug":"in-re-kowalczyk-pretrial-detention-bail-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=21","title":{"rendered":"In re Kowalczyk \u2014 California Supreme Court Reaffirms Constitutional Right to Bail, Limits When Pretrial Detention May Be Imposed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
In re Kowalczyk<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
Supreme Court of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-30<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
S277910<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
California Constitution article I section 12, pretrial release, bail, preventive detention, Humphrey<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The California Constitution, since 1849, has guaranteed criminal defendants the right to be released on bail before trial \u2014 subject to narrow exceptions for capital cases and certain serious felonies where a court makes specific findings of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. Article I, section 12 lays out those exceptions and also prohibits the requirement of excessive bail.<\/p>\n

Gerald Kowalczyk was charged with felonies in San Mateo County and held without bail under section 12’s exception framework. He filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that the trial court’s denial of bail did not satisfy the constitutional requirements: there was no individualized finding by clear and convincing evidence that release would create a substantial likelihood of the harms the Constitution permits courts to prevent. The First District Court of Appeal granted relief; the People appealed to the California Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The case landed against the backdrop of the Court’s prior ruling in In re Humphrey<\/em> (2021), which struck down the practice of detaining defendants solely because they could not afford the bail amount set, and required courts to consider individualized circumstances including non-monetary release conditions.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Guerrero, reaffirmed the strong default in favor of pretrial release and clarified the procedural and substantive showing required before a defendant can be detained without bail under section 12. The court held that detention is a constitutional exception<\/em>, not the rule, and that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing \u2014 by clear and convincing evidence \u2014 both that the offense falls within section 12’s narrow categories and that release on any combination of conditions would create the substantial likelihood of harm the Constitution requires.<\/p>\n

The court emphasized that monetary bail set at amounts a defendant cannot afford is functionally equivalent to detention without bail, and must be analyzed under the same heightened standard. Trial courts must make specific, on-the-record findings \u2014 not boilerplate recitations \u2014 and must consider non-monetary alternatives (electronic monitoring, supervised release, treatment programs) before concluding that detention is the only adequate safeguard.<\/p>\n

Justice Groban, joined by Justices Liu and Evans, wrote separately to emphasize that section 12’s framework is more protective than the federal Eighth Amendment baseline, and to call for further legislative attention to the bail-system mechanics that the decision leaves in place. Justice Wiley wrote a brief separate concurrence.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n