San Francisco Appeals Federal Court Injunction on Warrantless Searches, Shuts Down Pretrial Release Program

Several San Francisco officials on Thursday announced plans to appeal a federal court decision that prohibits the Sheriff’s Department from requiring defendants in its pretrial release program to consent to warrantless searches.

The city’s latest appeal is the most recent development in a federal class action lawsuit filed against San Francisco and its sheriff, Paul Miyamoto, by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California in 2022.

As part of the Sheriff’s Department’s electronic monitoring program for defendants released prior to trial, participants are required to consent to searches of themselves and their property without probable cause. The ACLU’s lawsuit alleges that the requirement is a violation of the Fourth Amendment that oversteps the sheriff’s authority in cases where trial court judges do not specifically order what’s called a “search condition.”

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled last week that the city and sheriff were in violation of a previous court order that had placed a preliminary injunction on the warrantless search condition. He ordered the Sheriff’s Department to immediately stop such searches, warning that the city could be held in contempt.

However, in a press conference on Thursday, Miyamoto said the program is inoperable without the condition due to the often serious nature of the charges facing the defendants.

“As sheriff, I’ve had the difficult task of running a program that strikes a balance between public safety and ensuring the constitutional rights of the accused,” Miyamoto said. “Removing conditions that keep everyone safe, in essence, removes the tools we have to provide this important alternative to the jail.”

Earlier this week, Miyamoto also announced that in the wake of the ruling, his department would be suspending new enrollments in its GPS ankle-monitoring program due to concerns over the safety of deputies and other law enforcement officers, who he said need to be able to search defendants to determine whether they are in possession of weapons or drugs.

Current enrollees will continue to stay in the program during their pretrial period.

In recent years, the sheriff’s pretrial release program has been an especially important alternative for the courts, according to Miyamoto, who said that without it, courts would have fewer options for releasing defendants from jail.

Miyamoto noted that his department is preparing for an increase in the jail population as a result of the ruling. He added that they have also opened additional dormitories for defendants.

There were 404 defendants currently enrolled in the department’s pretrial release program as of Thursday morning, according to a sheriff’s spokesperson. Of those, 233 have been charged with serious or violent crimes as defined by state law. The remaining defendants have been charged with other felonies or misdemeanors, including crimes such as domestic abuse and drug sales.

Plaintiffs in the federal class action case, including the ACLU of NorCal, have filed multiple examples of a search condition being imposed in cases that did not involve violent criminal charges.

In those cases, judges overseeing the trials stated that they wouldn’t demand warrantless searches if the sheriff’s program didn’t require it or explicitly said a search condition shouldn’t be applied.

“The federal court’s order does not prevent the San Francisco Superior Court from ordering warrantless searches in cases where they are persuaded that it is necessary to protect public safety,” said Emi Young, an ACLU NorCal attorney. “The federal court order does not disrupt the sheriff’s ability to act under those orders at all. The problem comes when the sheriff is asserting that he should be able to exercise warrantless searching authority even where the superior court has determined it is unnecessary.”

Young added that allowing any law enforcement agency to make unilateral decisions about what’s best for public safety without consideration of a judge’s decision is a “slippery slope.”

But at Thursday’s press conference, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins countered that it’s “oftentimes reckless” for courts to release defendants on ankle monitors without a warrantless search condition.

While 50% may not be serious and violent felonies, we still have a large degree of our fentanyl dealers on ankle monitors, and while the penal code may not necessarily consider that to be a violent crime, they are killing more people than our violent offenders right now,” Jenkins said. “You can’t just look at the nature of the charge. You have to actually look at the conduct and what harm it’s having on our community.”

Jenkins said she stands behind the Sheriff’s Department and the city’s decision to file an appeal against the court’s ruling.

During the press conference, San Francisco Mayor London Breed also backed Sheriff Miyamoto’s move to suspend the program and said she supported the upcoming appeal. She said the Sheriff’s Department provides the city with an “important reform tool” that allows defendants a second chance to return to the community while awaiting resolution of criminal cases.

Earlier this year, Breed received an official endorsement from Miyamoto as part of her mayoral campaign. The Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, however, endorsed Mark Farrell, one of her main opponents, and issued a statement citing concerns over Breed’s negative impact on law enforcement efforts and her lack of support on their behalf.

As of now, new enrollment in the sheriff’s pretrial release program appears to be halted until the appeal is resolved.

“The sheriff’s announcement that he is going to refuse to operate the electronic monitoring program altogether instead of operating it within the bounds of his legal authority is further evidence that he is not willing to be bound by the orders of both the San Francisco Superior Court and the federal court,” said Young, the ACLU attorney. “It is just a workaround to all of the protections that the Fourth Amendment guarantees every one of us.”