A federal judge has ruled the San Francisco sheriff and other government officials have violated his earlier order that blocked law enforcement officers from continuing to enforce electronic monitoring rules that allegedly violate the constitutional rights of people awaiting criminal trial.
San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto and San Francisco's city attorney said the ruling will leave those charged with crimes with fewer less stringent options for pretrial detention and could place San Francisco communities facing increased risk from potentially violent criminals.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar filed an opinion Feb. 13 denying a motion to dismiss a lawsuit from three named plaintiffs — criminal defendants Joshua Simon, David Barber and Josue Bonilla — and other defendants identified as San Francisco taxpayers, who alleged the City and County of San Francisco and Miyamoto violated Fourth Amendment rights and other state and federal constitutional protections by requiring jail detainees consent to searches at any time as a condition of pretrial release.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar
| Linkedin
Tigar agreed to send the taxpayer claims to state court, certified the class and issued a preliminary junction blocking enforcement of two rules the sheriff’s office established for local oversight of the state court system’s pretrial electronic monitoring policy. When the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in September 2022, and until changes in May 2023, the sheriff office's rule known as Rule Five required those charged with criminal acts and released from custody on electronic monitoring to “submit to a search of my person, residence, automobile or property by any peace officer at any time,” while Rule 13 stipulated: “I acknowledge that my (electronic monitoring) data may be shared with other criminal justice partners.”
In a Sept. 26 opinion, Tigar said the government defendants are violating the injunction. First, the sheriff’s office won’t release people on electronic monitoring in cases where judges opted against imposing a warrantless search condition. The record included at least one email from the sheriff’s legal counsel declining to accept someone into the program based on a judicial order that didn’t include the requested condition.
Second, when judges have imposed warrantless searches as a condition of being released to electronic monitoring, those jurists “indicated that they would not have done so under the facts of the case if the sheriff’s office did not require it as a prerequisite,” Tigar wrote.
Pointing back to the temporary injunction, Tigar said his analysis included consideration of judges who had only agreed to the warrantless search terms based on a belief they were bound by the city’s rules, which are stricter than state standards. In February he said it appears state law doesn’t allow San Francisco to establish its own pretrial release conditions, especially as doing so “extinguishes judicial discretion and the possibility of true individualized judicial review.”
Tigar noted the possibility of arguing the government defendants haven’t explicitly violated the injunction because it is judges, and not the sheriff’s office, who order the search condition. However, he continued, “defendants’ behavior in this second group of cases is the same conduct that formed the basis for the court’s injunction, and there can be no question that the conduct violates the spirit of the injunction.”
Tigar said his ruling should remove any ambiguity or uncertainty about whether the sheriff’s office has violated the injunction. Although he declined to “issue an order to show cause as to why defendants should not be held in contempt,” Tigar said the ruling puts the government “on clear notice” that continued violations would pave the way for the plaintiffs to request contempt proceedings or pursue other relief.
Although the plaintiffs wanted Tigar to order the government to identify all people released on electronic monitoring – since Feb. 13 – with the warrantless search position imposed, Tigar declined to grant that request and said the plaintiffs could request such data through discovery.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Shilpi Agarwal, Avram D. Frey, Emi Young and Hannah Kieschnick, of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, of San Francisco.
Miyamoto’s office responded to the ruling on Sept. 30 by announcing it would pause enrolling new participants in the program.
“I am extremely disappointed by the recent ruling in the Simon case by the District Court,” Miyamoto said in a prepared statement in a news release. “This ruling fails to see the value of pretrial electronic monitoring as an innovative program that allows incarcerated individuals, often charged with serious and violent offenses, to receive services, and avail themselves of opportunities in the community that provide them a chance to succeed while awaiting the resolution of their criminal matters.”
“The federal court’s decision in this case is unfortunate and does not comport with practical implementation issues the Sheriff’s Office must address to keep our communities safe,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “If sheriff’s deputies are unable to search defendants accused of violent felonies for weapons in real time or conduct home checks, that does not protect public safety. This order has put the sheriff in an extremely difficult position. My office will continue advocating in court for an option that allows the program to continue while ensuring public safety, but until then, the most prudent path is to stop enrolling new participants in the electronic monitoring program.”