In Philadelphia, defendants who are arrested and then charged with a crime remain held in a divisional booking center, where they participate via videoconference in preliminary arraignments (also known as “bail hearings'').  Philadelphia Municipal Arraignment Court Magistrates (ACMs) of the First Judicial District conduct these hearings and determine whether to release a defendant and what conditions, if any, to impose on release.  The vast majority of ACMs are non-lawyers who have completed a training program and passed an examination,  

On March 12, 2019, two nonprofits  – the Philadelphia Community Bail Fund and the Youth Art & Self-Empowerment Project – and ten individuals, who were then incarcerated on cash bail that they could not afford, filed this putative class action lawsuit and petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania against six ACMs for their allegedly illegal practices when imposing cash bail.  Represented by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and a private law firm, the plaintiffs claimed that the ACMs had violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and Pennsylvania state Constitution by regularly imposing cash bail on indigent defendants without considering their ability to pay or available alternative conditions on release.  

While the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Constitution mandate that an ACM may impose a monetary condition on release only if it is necessary to ensure a defendant's appearance at trial and after considering the defendant's ability to pay, the plaintiffs claimed that the ACNs routinely set bail in the thousands of dollars without considering the defendants' financial means.  The plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction over the lawsuit (known as “King’s Bench jurisdiction”); set a date for a hearing on any allegations contested by the ACMs; issue an order requiring the magistrates to conduct preliminary arraignments in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure; and award any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on July 8, 2019 denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and request for mandamus relief.  The Court, however, exercised its original jurisdiction over the case and appointed John M. Cleland, Senior Judge of Common Pleas of McKean County, as a special master to conduct an inquiry with respect to the operation of the cash bail system in the First Judicial District.  The July 2019 Order stipulated that the parties were to participate in proceedings before Judge Cleland and encouraged them to enter into stipulations of facts and to reach other appropriate agreements.  

In his report issued on December 16, 2019, Judge Cleland concluded that the "bail system as conceived is essentially sound" and that a "wholesale overhaul" of the bail system would be "unrealistic.  Judge Cleland declined to specifically comment on whether the allegations supported an inference that the ACM’s practices were unlawful.  Since the Supreme Court had not prescribed how his inquiry should be conducted, the special master explained that it was agreed that the case would proceed in the “nature of mediation” with the goal of reaching agreement among the parties of how to ensure the cash bail system comply with law.  The parties agreed on several recommendations, including: that defendants should be represented at preliminary arraignments and be afforded an opportunity to communicate confidentially with their counsel; that all conditions for bail imposed by ACMs should be free from ambiguity; that all defendants should be presumed releasable; that a decision to impose cash bail must consider a defendant's ability to pay; that defendants held without bail at a preliminary arraignment should be entitled to a promptly held release determination hearing; and that defendants who remain in custody due to the imposition of cash bail or a non-monetary condition (such as house arrest) should be entitled to a timely bail review hearing.  

The special master recommended that the Court adopt these eight agreements and offered several additional suggestions for improving the bail system.  Specifically, Judge Cleland proposed that the Supreme Court appoint the President Judge of the municipal court to oversee the implementation and evaluation of the parties agreements' and his suggestions; that ACMs be provided with a more robust set of information about defendants through an enhanced interviewing and information-collection process; that a risk-assessment tool to be used by ACMs to accurately assess whether a defendant presents a danger to a community; that law enforcement have access to information regarding conditions that have been imposed on a defendant as a condition of release or on bail; that continuing education for ACMs be enhanced and restructured; that the ACM hearing room's audio-visual system be improved; that plain-language standards be adopted in all release paperwork including conditions of the bail; and the development of a process to evaluate the performance of each ACM and of the system as a whole.  In response to the special master's report, several interested organizations, including the Juvenile Law Center and Former Federal Prosecutors, filed amicus briefs assessing the recommendations.  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order on July 27, 2020, reaffirming that cash-bail determinations must be made in accordance with existing law.  The Court observed that many of the proposals of the parties and special master arguably fell outside of the Court’s exercise of original jurisdiction because they were “not squarely related to alleged ‘systemic failures’ of the First Judicial District to abide by current law.”  Accordingly, the Court suggested that the court administrator consider them for possible administrative action.  The Court declined to comment on whether the ACMs had violated existing law and thereby relinquished its jurisdiction over the matter.  The case is now closed.