List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail 52 —Excessive bail (66) Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California. 49 BAIL 3,008 49II In Criminal Prosecutions 2,951 49 50 Amount of Bail 196 49 52 Excessive bail 66 1. Mendia v. Garcia United States District Court, N.D. California. February 26, 2016 165 F.Supp.3d 861 Headnote: Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause prevents the imposition of bail conditions that are excessive in light of the valid interests the state seeks to protect by offering bail. U.S. Const. Amend. 8. Document Summary: GOVERNMENT - Tort Claims. Detainee would be granted leave to amend complaint to assert a false imprisonment claim under the FTCA . 2. Mendia v. Garcia United States District Court, N.D. California. February 26, 2016 165 F.Supp.3d 861 Headnote: In order to prevail on an excessive bail claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the bail conditions are excessive for the purpose of achieving the valid state interests for which bail is intended to serve for a particular individual; a plaintiff must also demonstrate that the law enforcement official was the actual and proximate cause of the excessive bail by deliberately or recklessly making misrepresentations to the court. U.S. Const.Amend. 8. Document Summary: GOVERNMENT - Tort Claims. Detainee would be granted leave to amend complaint to assert a false imprisonment claim under the FTCA . 3. Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 18, 2013 719 F.3d 1054 Headnote: To determine whether particular legislative denial of bail violates Excessive Bail Clause, court must look to valid state interests bail is intended to serve for particular individual and judge whether bail conditions are excessive for purpose of achieving those interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Arizona constitutional provision prohibiting state courts from setting bail for detainees did not violate due process. 4. Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 18, 2013 719 F.3d 1054 Headnote: Arizona constitutional provision that categorically prohibited state courts from setting bail for arrestees who were in United States illegally was not excessive in light of Arizona's legitimate interest of assuring presence at trial, and thus did not violate Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause. A.R.S. Const. Art. 2, §22(A)(4). Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Arizona constitutional provision prohibiting state courts from setting bail for detainees did not violate due process. 5. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: Journalist arrested while covering a demonstration at a university stated a §1983 claim against the university's board of regents, its police department and various officers for violation of the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment on a theory that defendants added unsupported charges for the sole purpose of increasing his bail; the theory was viable © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail under the Excessive Bail Clause, despite the indirect means defendants allegedly used to obtain the higher bail, and the intervening actions of the judicial officer who actually set bail. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; 42 U.S.C.A. §1983; West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code §1275. 3 Cases that cite this legal issue Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation. 6. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: Excessive Bail Clause prevents the imposition of bail conditions that are excessive in light of the valid interests the state seeks to protect by offering bail. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 1 Case that cites this legal issue Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation. 7. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: When faced with claims of excessive bail, courts look to the valid state interests bail is intended to serve for a particular individual and judge whether bail conditions are excessive for the purpose of achieving those interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation. 8. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: State may not set bail to achieve invalid interests, nor in an amount that is excessive in relation to the valid interests it seeks to achieve. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation. 9. Morse v. Regents of University of California, Berkeley United States District Court, N.D. California. May 18, 2011 821 F.Supp.2d 1112 Headnote: Plaintiff can state a claim under the Excessive Bail Clause where defendants deliberately or recklessly mislead a judicial officer to raise an arrestee's bail for the purpose of buying time to obtain an unlawful search warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. 2 Cases that cite this legal issue Document Summary: EDUCATION - Civil Rights. Liability under the Privacy Protection Act is not limited to those personally involved in a statutory violation. 10. U.S. v. Pool United States District Court, E.D. California. May 27, 2009 645 F.Supp.2d 903 Headnote: Bail Reform Act's provision for mandatory DNA sampling as condition of pretrial release did not violate Excessive Bail Clause; DNA sampling involved minimal intrusion, vs. federal government's compelling interest in collection of DNA for criminal law enforcement identification purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(b), (c)(1)(A). 1 Case that cites this legal issue © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Searches and Seizures. Requirement that federal indictee provide DNA sample as condition of pretrial release comported with Fourth Amendment. 11. U.S. v. Pool United States District Court, E.D. California. May 27, 2009 645 F.Supp.2d 903 Headnote: To find violation of Excessive Bail Clause, court must find that release conditions are excessive in light of the perceived evil. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Searches and Seizures. Requirement that federal indictee provide DNA sample as condition of pretrial release comported with Fourth Amendment. 12. U.S. v. Petersen United States District Court, E.D. California. May 16, 2008 557 F.Supp.2d 1124 Headnote: Fifth and Eighth Amendments prohibitions of deprivations of liberty without due process and of excessive bail require careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate of the Bail Reform Act has been respected. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(e-g). Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Pretrial detention was warranted of defendant charged with impersonating DEA agent. 13. U.S. v. Gardner United States District Court, N.D. California. November 28, 2007 523 F.Supp.2d 1025 Headnote: To find violation of Excessive Bail Clause, court must find that release conditions are excessive in light of perceived evil. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8. Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Imposition of electronic monitoring as condition for pretrial release did not violate Excessive Bail Clause. 14. U.S. v. Gardner United States District Court, N.D. California. November 28, 2007 523 F.Supp.2d 1025 Headnote: Imposition of electronic monitoring as condition for pretrial release in prosecution for sex trafficking of minor did not violate Excessive Bail Clause, even though condition was statutorily mandated, and was not least restrictive condition necessary, where defendant was already under curfew at direction of Pretrial Services, electronic monitoring provided added insurance against violations of bond conditions, and defendant was not subject to substantive restriction in her movement or to bail amount that was financially out of her reach. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; 18 U.S.C.A. §3142(c)(1)(B). 10 Cases that cite this legal issue Document Summary: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Bail. Imposition of electronic monitoring as condition for pretrial release did not violate Excessive Bail Clause. 15. Galen v. County of Los Angeles United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 19, 2007 477 F.3d 652 Headnote: Bail of $1 million for domestic violence arrestee, enhanced from $50,000 listed in county's felony bail schedule, was not excessive, and thus did not violate Eighth Amendment, absent showing that the bail was enhanced for an improper purpose or that it was higher than necessary to achieve a valid state interest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code §§1269c, 1275. 3 Cases that cite this legal issue © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 List of 66 headnotes for k52 —Excessive bail Document Summary: CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity. Sheriff's deputy who requested bail enhancement was entitled to qualified immunity in §1983 excessive bail claim.