Updated September 2026. Written for families and friends of someone arrested in Santa Barbara County. Checked against the Superior Court’s 2026 Felony Bail Schedule (effective June 2026), the California Penal Code as published current through January 1, 2026, the Probation Department’s pretrial manual and the Sheriff’s Office jail pages.

Quick answer: Santa Barbara County’s bail schedule is the Superior Court’s list of preset bail amounts that the jail uses before a judge has seen the case. The current edition is the court’s “2026 Felony Bail Schedule,” effective June 2026, and the same document contains a misdemeanor section. It applies before the first court appearance, mainly to people arrested without a warrant. Any felony the schedule does not list is $20,000, and any unspecified misdemeanor is $2,500. Listed examples include $2,000,000 for murder (murder with special circumstances is not bailable), $50,000 for second degree robbery, $20,000 for grand theft over $950, $10,000 for misdemeanor domestic battery and $5,000 for a first misdemeanor DUI. When there are several charges, the highest single felony counts, plus any enhancements and priors. Before arraignment, a judicial officer may release some people on their own recognizance or on $0 bail with conditions, but the schedule excludes 15 groups from that pre-arraignment release. After the first court appearance, the judge sets bail, which may be higher or lower than the schedule, under Penal Code 1275 and the California Supreme Court’s decisions in Humphrey (2021) and Kowalczyk (2026).

At a glance: the Santa Barbara County bail schedule in 2026

In this guide: What the schedule is | Finding the current edition | How it is organized | Common amounts | Enhancements and priors | Release before arraignment | Arraignment | Worked examples | Finding a bail amount | What it means for a family | Local history | Family checklist | How Bail Hotline can help | FAQ | Sources

What Santa Barbara County’s Bail Schedule Is

California does not have one statewide criminal bail schedule. Penal Code 1269b(c) says: “It is the duty of the superior court judges in each county to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a uniform countywide schedule of bail for all bailable felony offenses and for all misdemeanor and infraction offenses except Vehicle Code infractions.” Santa Barbara County’s schedule is therefore its own document, written by its own judges, with its own amounts and rules. Our California bail amounts by crime guide compares schedules across the state. This page stays with Santa Barbara County and explains how to read its current schedule and what it means for a family in the first days after an arrest.

Three features shape how the schedule works in practice.

It is countywide. The statute calls for a “uniform countywide schedule.” An arrest in Isla Vista, Goleta, Lompoc, Santa Maria or Carpinteria is measured against the same court document, whichever law enforcement agency made the arrest. Under Penal Code 1269b(a), the officer in charge of the jail where the person is held, among others, may accept bail and issue a release order.

It works before the first court appearance. Penal Code 1269b(b) says that once a defendant has appeared before a judge on the charge, bail is the amount the judge fixed. Before that appearance, bail is the amount written on the arrest warrant, or, if there is no warrant, the amount under the countywide schedule. The Santa Barbara schedule says the same thing in its own words: “After an arrestee’s first appearance in court, the amount of bail will lie within the sound discretion of the judicial officer before whom the arrestee appeared and may be greater or less than the amount set forth in this schedule.”

It is a starting point, not a verdict. The schedule lists amounts by charge. It does not decide guilt, and it does not predict what a judge will do at arraignment. The booking charges on the jail’s record can also differ from the charges the District Attorney files for court. If the person was arrested on a warrant, the warrant’s amount controls instead; our guide to posting bail on an outstanding warrant explains that path.

The schedule is not for traffic tickets. Penal Code 1269b(c) leaves out Vehicle Code infractions, and subdivision (f) assigns the penalty schedule for those infractions to the Judicial Council. The court posts that statewide document, the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules, 2026 edition, separately. Its preface draws the distinction plainly: “bail is used to ensure the presence of the defendant before the court,” while “a penalty in the form of a monetary sum is a fine imposed as all or a portion of a sentence imposed.”

Where to Find the Current Schedule

The Superior Court posts its schedules on one page, Bail Schedules, under the heading “Bail Schedule Information.” When we checked it in September 2026, it listed three documents:

1. Felony/Misdemeanor Bail Schedule, marked updated 06/2026. This is the 2026 Felony Bail Schedule PDF. Its cover reads “2026 FELONY BAIL SCHEDULE” and “Effective June 2026.”
2. Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, marked updated 01/2026. This is the Judicial Council’s statewide traffic and infraction document described above.
3. Vehicle Code Infraction Fine Breakdown, marked updated 08/2023.

For an arrest, the first document is the one that matters. The PDF we read does not show a signed adoption order or an exact day in June.

Why older copies cause confusion

Old Santa Barbara schedules are still easy to find. A search for the county’s bail schedule can surface a 2020 edition, approved in February 2020, that is still hosted on the court’s own site. Many of the headline amounts did not change between 2020 and 2026 (murder, attempted murder, both degrees of robbery, residential burglary and stalking were the same in both), but the 2026 edition cites the Supreme Court’s 2026 Kowalczyk decision, and details elsewhere in the document can differ. Always check the cover date and download the file from the court’s Bail Schedules page, not from a saved link.

How the June 2026 Schedule Is Organized

The 2026 document has eight main parts. Knowing them makes it much easier to find what applies to one booking.

1. Judicial discretion and controlling law. The schedule explains that the judge takes over after the first appearance and acts “subject to the provision of PC § 1275 and controlling case law,” naming In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135 and In re Kowalczyk (Cal. 2026) 19 Cal.5th 593.
2. Pre-arraignment release. A section explains what a judicial officer may do before arraignment: own recognizance release, release on $0 money bail with nonfinancial conditions, money bail with or without conditions, or deferring the question to arraignment.
3. Offenses excluded from pre-arraignment release. A 15-item list headed “OFFENSES EXCLUDED FROM PRE-ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE (PC § 1270.1, § 1319, § 1319.5).”
4. Requests for higher bail. A section on Penal Code 1269c explains how officers ask for more than the schedule amount.
5. The multiple-charge rule. How to handle a booking with several counts.
6. Offense tables. Felony charges from the Penal Code, Health and Safety Code and Vehicle Code, each with a dollar amount.
7. Sentence enhancing allegations. A table headed “BAIL FOR SENTENCE ENHANCING ALLEGATIONS ADD TO PRESUMPTIVE BAIL.”
8. Misdemeanor bail schedule. A shorter list of named misdemeanors, followed by the default for unspecified misdemeanors.

Some California counties now print $0 release codes next to many lower level charges, and our statewide bail amounts guide explains those programs. The Santa Barbara schedule works differently. It still prints a dollar amount on nearly every listed charge, and release on $0 bail in Santa Barbara County comes from a judicial officer’s decision before arraignment, not from a code printed next to the charge.

Common Bail Amounts on the 2026 Schedule

The table below lists a selection of charges families ask about most, with the amount printed in the June 2026 schedule. These are presumptive amounts for the charge alone. Enhancements and priors add to them, and the judge can change them at arraignment. If a charge is not in this table, check the full PDF; if it is a felony that the schedule does not list at all, the default is $20,000.

The misdemeanor section is shorter. It names a set of offenses and then sets a default for everything else.

A few practical notes on reading these lines:

• A charge can appear twice. Protective order violations, domestic violence and DUI show up in both the felony tables and the misdemeanor section. Which amount applies depends on how the charge was booked. Ask the jail whether the charge is listed as a felony or a misdemeanor.
• Value tiers matter in theft cases. Grand theft and receiving stolen property climb with the amount involved. The booking report’s estimate of value can move a case from one tier to the next.
• The schedule is not a sentencing guide. A $150,000 amount for stalking, for example, reflects the court’s view of risk before trial, not the likely sentence.

Our specialist guides go deeper on several of these charge types, including domestic violence bail, DUI bail bonds, drug possession bail, stalking and petty theft with a prior under PC 666.

How Enhancements and Priors Add to the Number

The charge line is often not the whole amount. Penal Code 1269b(e) requires the judges, when they adopt the schedule, to “assign an additional amount of required bail for each aggravating or enhancing factor chargeable in the complaint.” Santa Barbara’s schedule does this in a separate table headed “BAIL FOR SENTENCE ENHANCING ALLEGATIONS ADD TO PRESUMPTIVE BAIL.” These amounts are added on top of the charge amount.

The prior prison term line is shown as the schedule prints it, but the enhancements it cites are now narrow. Under the current text of Penal Code 667.5, subdivision (b) covers only an earlier prison term for a sexually violent offense, and subdivision (a) applies only when both the new charge and the earlier offense are violent felonies. If a jail total includes this line, ask what it is based on.

The multiple-charge rule

Many bookings list several charges. Santa Barbara’s schedule does not add every count together. It says that for a felony-only case, and for a felony combined with misdemeanors or infractions, “The highest bail amount for any one felony offense, plus enhancements and priors, will apply.”

In plain terms, the jail finds the single most expensive felony on the booking, then adds the enhancement and prior amounts that apply. Lower felonies and any misdemeanors on the same booking do not add to the total under this rule. That is why two people booked on very different lists of charges can end up with the same presumptive bail, and why one added allegation, such as a firearm or a prior strike, can change the number far more than a second charge would.

If the jail’s figure is higher than the charge line you found in the schedule, the difference usually comes from an enhancement, a prior, a warrant amount, or an officer’s request for higher bail. Ask which one.

Can Someone Be Released Before Arraignment?

Yes, in some cases. The 2026 schedule includes a pre-arraignment release section. It says that, “Applying the factors set forth in PC § 1275, and Article 1, sections 12 and 28, the judicial officer will consider known facts about the offense and the arrestee as well as a risk assessment report” in deciding among four options:

1. Release on the person’s own recognizance.
2. Release on “$0 money bail and non-financial conditions of release,” limited to conditions that are the least restrictive ones reasonably related to the crime and necessary to assure court appearance and the safety of the public and the victim.
3. A money bail amount, with or without financial conditions, under the same least restrictive standard.
4. Deferring the release decision until arraignment.

The “risk assessment report” comes from the Santa Barbara County Probation Department. Its adult manual chapter on the Pre-Trial Supervision (PTS) Program (issued September 27, 2018 and revised June 28, 2024) says Pretrial Services Specialists review and assess defendants using the “Virginia Pre Trial Risk Assessment Instrument-Revised (VPRAI-R).” The specialists “file a report prior to the defendant’s arraignment hearing,” recommending that “the defendant be released either prior to or at arraignment on basic OR, Pretrial Supervision (PTS), or that the defendant remain detained.”

Two points matter for families:

• A recommendation is not a decision. Probation recommends, and a judicial officer decides.
• Own recognizance release still comes with promises. Under Penal Code 1318, the signed release agreement includes “The defendant’s promise to appear at all times and places, as ordered by the court or magistrate,” a promise “to obey all reasonable conditions,” a promise “not to depart this state without leave of the court,” and a waiver of extradition. Our guide to what released on own recognizance means explains those terms.

The schedule does not print a public phone number for families to request pre-arraignment release. Families can also ask for lower bail directly. For a person arrested without a warrant for a bailable felony, or for violating a domestic violence restraining order, Penal Code 1269c allows an application for lower bail or “release on his or her own recognizance,” “either personally or through his or her attorney, friend, or family member.” The statute makes one exception: that request is not available when the charge is one of the offenses listed in Penal Code 1270.1(a), such as most serious or violent felonies, stalking or misdemeanor domestic battery, which need a hearing in open court instead. Ask the jail, or a defense attorney, how that request reaches the on-duty judicial officer.

The 15 groups excluded from pre-arraignment release

The schedule lists 15 groups under the heading “OFFENSES EXCLUDED FROM PRE-ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE (PC § 1270.1, § 1319, § 1319.5).” In the schedule’s order, they are people who:

1. Were arrested for a sex related offense.
2. Were arrested for an intimate partner violence offense as defined in Family Code 6211, which the schedule says includes spousal battery, child abuse, elder abuse, stalking and violation of a restraining order.
3. Were arrested for a third DUI within the past 10 years, a DUI with injury, or a DUI with a blood alcohol content of .20 or above.
4. Had a restraining order violation within the last 5 years.
5. Had 3 or more warrants for failure to appear in the 3 years before the current arrest (Vehicle Code infractions excepted) and were arrested for one of the offenses the schedule lists for this group.
6. Are currently pending trial or sentencing on another felony or misdemeanor.
7. Are currently on felony probation, parole, postrelease community supervision (PRCS) or PSS, as the schedule abbreviates it.
8. Intimidated, dissuaded or threatened retaliation against a witness or victim of the current crime.
9. Violated a condition of pretrial release within the last 5 years, resulting in revocation of that release.
10. Have been arrested or convicted of a serious felony under PC 1192.7(c) or a violent felony under PC 667.5(c).
11. Were arrested for an offense involving an illegal firearm, or in which a firearm was used.
12. Were arrested for a human trafficking offense described in PC 266 and following sections.
13. Were arrested for a monetary crime in which more than $100,000 was taken.
14. Were arrested for voluntary vehicular manslaughter, or involuntary vehicular manslaughter in which negligence is a factor.
15. Were arrested for narcotics sales involving the weights described in HS 11370.4, or while armed with a firearm under HS 11370.1.

What “excluded” means, in our reading. The heading cites three statutes. Penal Code 1270.1 requires “a hearing shall be held in open court” before people arrested for listed crimes may be released on bail “in an amount that is either more or less than the amount contained in the schedule of bail,” or on their own recognizance. Penal Code 1319 says no one arrested for a violent felony “may be released on his or her own recognizance until a hearing is held in open court.” Penal Code 1319.5 does the same for people on felony probation or felony parole and for certain people with three or more failures to appear. Those statutes limit release below the schedule or without bail before a hearing. They do not, by their own terms, forbid posting the scheduled amount, and Penal Code 1269b(b) makes the schedule amount the bail before a first appearance. The Santa Barbara schedule does not spell this point out, so confirm with the jail or a defense attorney. For many people in these groups, the practical choices before arraignment are to post the scheduled amount or to wait for the judge.

When police ask for higher bail

The schedule amount is not always the final number before arraignment. The schedule explains: “Prevailing legislation places the burden on law enforcement agencies to notify the judicial officer if the schedule bail is not adequate for the crime.” Under Penal Code 1269c, when someone is arrested without a warrant for a bailable felony, or for the misdemeanor of violating a domestic violence restraining order, an officer who has “reasonable cause to believe that the amount of bail set forth in the schedule of bail for that offense is insufficient to ensure the defendant’s appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence” can file a declaration asking for higher bail.

There is a clock on that request. The statute says that if “no order changing the amount of bail is issued within eight hours after booking,” the person may be released on posting the scheduled amount. The Santa Barbara schedule describes the same window in its own words: “Eight hours is permitted for review by a judicial officer after the application for bail increase is made, after which time the arrestee is entitled to be released on posting the amount set forth in the bail schedule.”

If a judge does raise the amount, our guide on whether a judge can raise bail explains what can follow.

What Changes at Arraignment

The arraignment is the first court appearance, where the charges are read and a judge addresses custody and release. Penal Code 825 requires that a person in custody be taken before a judge “without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays.” Our guide to how long it takes to see a judge explains how weekends and holidays stretch that window.

In Santa Barbara County, the court’s Criminal Division page lists criminal courthouses in Santa Barbara (118 E. Figueroa Street), Santa Maria (312 East Cook Street) and Lompoc (115 Civic Center Plaza). The jail or the court clerk can confirm which courthouse will hear a particular case. The court’s case records search and court calendars can help once a case is filed.

At arraignment, the schedule stops controlling. What the judge weighs:

• Penal Code 1275 factors. Under Penal Code 1275(a)(1), “In setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate shall take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. The public safety shall be the primary consideration.”
• A higher bar for reducing bail on serious or violent felonies. Penal Code 1275(c) says that before a court reduces bail below the county schedule for someone charged with a serious or violent felony, “the court shall make a finding of unusual circumstances and shall set forth those facts on the record.” It adds that “‘unusual circumstances’ does not include the fact that the defendant has made all prior court appearances or has not committed any new offenses.”
• A hearing for 1270.1 offenses. For the offenses listed in Penal Code 1270.1, which include serious and violent felonies (with residential burglary carved out), certain charges of dissuading a witness, corporal injury on a partner, felony criminal threats, stalking, misdemeanor domestic battery under PC 243(e)(1) and certain protective order violations, the prosecutor and defense receive a “two-court-day written notice and an opportunity to be heard,” and a judge who sets bail above or below the schedule must state the reasons on the record.
• Ability to pay. In In re Humphrey, decided March 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that “The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional,” and that “Where a financial condition is nonetheless necessary, the court must consider the arrestee’s ability to pay the stated amount of bail.” In In re Kowalczyk, decided April 30, 2026, the court held that, as a general matter, “bail must be set in an amount reasonably attainable for the defendant,” and that “courts cannot use artificially high or objectively unattainable bail as an end run to effectuate pretrial detention.” The court also made clear that bail need not be easily affordable or convenient, and that judges need not accept unsupported claims of inability to pay. Reliable financial information matters.
• Cases where bail can be denied. Article I, section 12 of the California Constitution begins, “A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for,” and its first exception is “Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great.” That is why the schedule marks murder with special circumstances “NOT BAILABLE.” Our guide to being denied bail covers the other exceptions.

For preparation, see our guides to preparing for a bail hearing in California and what counts as excessive bail.

Four Hypothetical Bookings Worked Through the Schedule

The four examples below are hypothetical. They are invented to show how the schedule’s rules combine, and they are not predictions about any real case. Real bookings often involve facts that change the result, and the judge has the final word at arraignment.

Hypothetical 1: second degree robbery, no record

A 24-year-old with no record and no case pending is booked at the Main Jail for second degree robbery. The schedule amount is $50,000. No enhancement or prior applies.

Robbery is a violent felony: Penal Code 667.5(c)(9) lists “Any robbery.” That puts the booking in group 10 of the schedule’s exclusion list, so the pre-arraignment release options (own recognizance or $0 with conditions) are off the table before a hearing. Penal Code 1270.1 and 1319 point the same way. In our reading, the family’s practical choices before arraignment are to post the $50,000 scheduled bail, in cash or through a bail bond, or to wait for the judge. At arraignment, a judge who wants to go below the schedule must find “unusual circumstances” on the record under Penal Code 1275(c), and must consider ability to pay if money bail is necessary.

Hypothetical 2: grand theft while on felony probation

A bookkeeper is arrested for grand theft of about $60,000 from an employer. The person is on felony probation from an older case.

• Grand theft over $50,000: $45,000.
• The schedule’s PC 12022.1 line for “felony charges pending” or being “on parole or felony probation”: $25,000.
• Presumptive total: $70,000.

Being on felony probation also places the booking in group 7 of the exclusion list, so the schedule’s pre-arraignment release options do not apply. The older case may raise its own questions, such as an alleged probation violation, which the scheduled bail on the new case does not resolve. Our guide to probation violations under PC 1203 explains that side.

Hypothetical 3: a first DUI at two different readings

A driver with no prior DUI and no injury crash is booked for a first misdemeanor DUI with a blood alcohol reading of .12. The misdemeanor schedule lists $5,000. The booking is not in group 3 (a third DUI in 10 years, a DUI with injury, or a reading of .20 or above). If no other group applies, a judicial officer may consider own recognizance release, $0 with conditions, money bail or deferring to arraignment, informed by Probation’s risk assessment.

Change one fact. The reading is .21. The schedule amount is still $5,000, but the booking now falls in group 3 and is excluded from pre-arraignment release. The scheduled amount, or waiting for arraignment, becomes the path.

Hypothetical 4: several charges, one prior strike

Someone is booked for a commercial burglary of a closed store at night, felony vandalism of the store’s door and a misdemeanor that the schedule does not list. Years earlier, the person was convicted of residential burglary, which is first degree burglary and a serious felony under Penal Code 1192.7(c) (“any burglary of the first degree”).

• Non-residential burglary, no person present: $20,000.
• Felony vandalism: $20,000.
• The misdemeanor: $2,500 as an unspecified misdemeanor.

Under the multiple-charge rule, only the highest single felony amount counts, so the charges contribute $20,000, not $42,500. The schedule’s line for a prior serious or violent felony adds $50,000 per prior. Presumptive total: $70,000. The earlier serious felony conviction also places the booking in group 10 of the exclusion list, so the schedule’s pre-arraignment release options do not apply. One prior added far more to the number than two extra charges did.

How to Find Someone’s Bail Amount in Santa Barbara County

The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office runs the county’s jails. Two facilities matter most to families:

The Sheriff’s jail facilities page says the Northern Branch Jail opened for inmates on January 22, 2022, with 376 beds, and that the Main Jail houses men and women, both pretrial and sentenced.

To check custody, use the Sheriff’s Who Is In Custody search, which takes a first and last name or an inmate number. The page warns: “The data contained on this web site should not be relied upon for any type of legal action.” Treat the result as a lead and confirm by phone.

When you reach the jail, ask for:

1. The booking number and the facility where the person is held.
2. Each booking charge, and whether it is booked as a felony or a misdemeanor.
3. The total bail, and whether any enhancement, prior or warrant amount is included.
4. Whether an officer has asked for higher bail, and when.
5. Whether any hold or other warrant is listed. Bail on one case does not resolve a different case.
6. The next court date and courthouse, if one is set.

Our statewide guides on how to find out if someone is in jail and the California inmate locator walk through lookups in more detail.

What the Scheduled Amount Means for a Family

The schedule amount is the bail, not necessarily what a family pays. There are two common ways to post it:

• Cash bail. The full amount is deposited. Our guide to getting bail money back explains when and how a cash deposit is returned, and our comparison of cash bond versus bail explains the difference between the two.
• A surety bail bond. A licensed bail agent posts a bond for the full amount. The family pays a premium and signs an agreement, and sometimes pledges collateral. The California Department of Insurance says: “Each surety company must file rates with CDI and bail agents representing a surety must charge the same filed rates.” The same page says: “Premiums are nonrefundable even if charges are dropped.” It also offers license lookups for bail agents.

Our guides to what it costs to bail someone out, bail bond payment plans, what you need to get a bail bond and what happens to bail money if charges are dropped explain the pieces.

Anyone who cosigns takes on real obligations, especially if the defendant misses court. Read our guides to your role as a bail bond cosigner and what happens after a failure to appear before signing. If the case moves along and a cosigner wants out later, our guide to canceling a bail bond as a cosigner explains how that works.

Once someone is out, the conditions travel with them. If the defendant lives, works or has family outside Santa Barbara County, read our guide to leaving the county while on bail and our checklist for what happens after posting bond.

If the number is out of reach, the arraignment is the next chance to change it. Bring the defense attorney or public defender reliable information about income, expenses, work, family and residence. Under Humphrey and Kowalczyk, the judge must consider ability to pay when setting money bail. Our guides to bail bonds for low income families and bailing someone out with no money cover other options.

How the Schedule Got Here: A Short Local History

Santa Barbara County’s approach to release before trial has changed in steps over the last decade.

The 2016 reporting captures why a written, uniform approach matters in a county whose courts and jails serve both a South County and a North County. Darrel Parker, then the Superior Court’s chief executive, told the Independent: “The South County was doing more creative things in pretrial, and the North was unaware of those things going on.” The same article reported that “73 percent of Santa Barbara detainees are awaiting trial, higher than the statewide average of 63 percent.” That figure is from 2016 and the article does not give its underlying source or date, so treat it as history, not a current measure.

What Families Should Do

1. Confirm custody and the facility. Use the Sheriff’s Who Is In Custody search, then call the Main Jail or the Northern Branch Jail to confirm.
2. Get the booking details. Write down the booking number, each charge, whether it is a felony or misdemeanor, and the total bail.
3. Check the amount against the current schedule. Use the June 2026 PDF from the court’s Bail Schedules page. Find the highest single felony, then add any enhancement or prior. If the jail’s figure is different, ask why.
4. Ask about a request for higher bail. If an officer asked a judicial officer to raise bail, note the booking time. The eight-hour window in Penal Code 1269c runs from booking.
5. Check the exclusion list. Compare the booking with the 15 excluded groups. If none applies, ask whether pre-arraignment release is being considered.
6. Decide between posting now and waiting. Arraignment should come within 48 hours, excluding Sundays and holidays. Weigh that against posting the scheduled amount now.
7. Prepare for arraignment. Contact a defense attorney or the public defender. Gather proof of work, residence, family responsibilities and finances, because the judge weighs public safety, court appearance and, for money bail, ability to pay.
8. Track the court date and courthouse. Cases are heard in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria or Lompoc. A missed date can bring a warrant.
9. Read before you cosign. Understand the agreement, any collateral and what happens if the defendant misses court.

How Bail Hotline Can Help

Everything above this section is written to be useful whether or not you ever call us. This is the one place we talk about ourselves. Bail Hotline has been family-owned since 2004 and is licensed through our parent company, DMCG, Inc., with the California Department of Insurance, license #1845394. Our team answers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at (888) 958-1228.

Scheduled bail at the Main Jail or the Northern Branch Jail? This is where we do our best work

In Santa Barbara County, the scheduled amount is the number that matters between booking and arraignment. For anyone in the schedule’s 15 excluded groups, posting that amount is often the only way home before a judge sees the case. That is the moment we are built for. We move quickly, we explain the numbers in plain English, and we help the family understand what signing means before anyone signs.

• We find the booking fast, at no charge. Our agents gather inmate information for every jail quickly and at no charge, and every office holds jail-system accounts.
• Dedicated posting agents work around the clock. When a bond is approved, our 24/7 posting agents handle the bond side of the release.
• Every cosigner gets a walkthrough. Before anyone signs, we walk the cosigner through the agreement so the family understands what it is agreeing to.
• Court-date reminders by text. Clients receive text reminders for their court dates.
• Warrant walk-throughs. If a warrant issues, or the arrest itself was on a warrant, we walk the family through the next steps.
• A way out for cosigners in good standing. A cosigner may sign out of a bond in good standing, meaning no past-due payments and a defendant who is not missing court or daily online check-ins. We explain how that works case by case.

Big numbers and out-of-county families

Santa Barbara’s schedule can produce large totals: $100,000 for carjacking, $150,000 for stalking, and far more once firearm allegations or strike priors are added. Families also call from other counties about someone held in Santa Barbara or Santa Maria. A large, complicated or out-of-county bond is not an automatic no with us. We look at the actual case and work through it with you.

Every case is different. The judicial officer makes the release decision, the Sheriff’s Office handles custody and release procedures, and we cannot promise a particular result, amount or release time. Honest mistakes and willful conduct are treated differently by courts, and prompt communication helps.

Bail Hotline offices near Santa Barbara County

From anywhere else, call the 24/7 line above, browse our office locations or start with online bail bonds. Our bail FAQ answers common first questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the bail for a felony that is not on the Santa Barbara County bail schedule?

$20,000. The June 2026 schedule sets that amount for any felony it does not list. Enhancements and priors can still be added, and the judge can set a different amount at arraignment.

How much is bail for a first DUI in Santa Barbara County?

The misdemeanor section lists $5,000 for a first DUI, $15,000 with one prior in 10 years and $25,000 with two. A DUI with three priors in 10 years is listed at $100,000, as is a DUI causing injury. A third DUI, a DUI with injury, or a reading of .20 or above also puts the booking in the schedule’s exclusion list for pre-arraignment release.

How much is bail for domestic violence in Santa Barbara County?

Misdemeanor domestic violence or battery (PC 243(e) or 273.5(a)) is $10,000, or $20,000 with a prior conviction for the same. Felony corporal injury under PC 273.5 is $50,000, or $100,000 with a prior. Intimate partner violence arrests are excluded from pre-arraignment release, and a 1270.1 hearing applies to several domestic violence charges. See our domestic violence bail guide.

Does Santa Barbara County have zero bail?

Not as a printed code next to each charge. The schedule allows a judicial officer to release some people before arraignment “upon $0 money bail and non-financial conditions of release,” but that is a decision in each case, and the 15 excluded groups cannot receive it before arraignment. Our guide to California’s no bail law covers the statewide background.

Can a judge change the amount on the bail schedule?

Yes. Before arraignment, an officer can ask for higher bail under Penal Code 1269c, and a defendant or family member can ask for lower bail or own recognizance release unless the charge is one of the Penal Code 1270.1(a) offenses, which need a hearing in open court. After the first appearance, the schedule says bail “may be greater or less than the amount set forth in this schedule,” subject to Penal Code 1275, Humphrey and Kowalczyk.

How do I find out someone’s bail amount in Santa Barbara County?

Search the Sheriff’s Who Is In Custody page, then call the Main Jail at (805) 681-4260 or the Northern Branch Jail at (805) 554-3100 to confirm the charges and total. Ask whether an enhancement, prior, warrant or request for higher bail is included.

How long until someone arrested in Santa Barbara County sees a judge?

Penal Code 825 requires an appearance “without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays.” An arrest late in the week or before a holiday can take longer on the calendar.

Is there a separate misdemeanor bail schedule in Santa Barbara County?

The misdemeanor schedule is a section inside the same June 2026 document, which the court posts as its Felony/Misdemeanor Bail Schedule. It names specific misdemeanors and sets $2,500 for unspecified ones. Traffic infractions use the Judicial Council’s separate Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules.

Can I still use the 2020 Santa Barbara County bail schedule?

No. The 2020 edition is still hosted on the court’s site, but the current document is the one effective June 2026. Penal Code 1269b requires the judges to revise the schedule every year, so always check the cover date.

Can someone be held without bail in Santa Barbara County?

Yes, in limited cases. The schedule marks murder with special circumstances “NOT BAILABLE,” consistent with the California Constitution’s exception for capital crimes. A judge can also deny bail in the other situations article I, section 12 describes. Our guide to being denied bail explains them.

Why We Publish This

We first published a page about Santa Barbara County’s bail schedule in July 2012, and families still search for it. The schedule has changed since then, and so has the law around it. This guide reads the current document closely, explains the rules that decide what happens before and at arraignment, and points to the official sources so families can check everything themselves.

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Laws, schedules and court procedures change, and every case turns on its own facts. For advice about a specific case, talk to a California criminal defense attorney or the public defender.

Sources and Further Reading

Santa Barbara County court documents

• Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara: Bail Schedules page.
• 2026 Felony Bail Schedule, effective June 2026 (includes the misdemeanor bail schedule).
• 2020 Felony Bail Schedule, approved February 2020 (superseded).
• Judicial Council of California: Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules, 2026 edition.
• Santa Barbara Superior Court: Criminal Division.
• Santa Barbara Superior Court: Case Records Search.

Santa Barbara County agencies

• Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office: Who Is In Custody.
• Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office: Jail Facilities.
• Santa Barbara County Probation Department: Pre-Trial Supervision (PTS) Program, Adult Manual Chapter 3230.

California law

• Penal Code 825.
• Penal Code 1269b.
• Penal Code 1269c.
• Penal Code 1270.1.
• Penal Code 1275.
• Penal Code 1318.
• Penal Code 1319.
• Penal Code 1319.5.
• Penal Code 667.5.
• Penal Code 1192.7.
• California Constitution, article I, section 12.

Court decisions

• In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135, decided March 25, 2021.
• In re Kowalczyk (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, decided April 30, 2026.

Regulators and reporting

• California Department of Insurance: Bail Bonds.
• Kelsey Brugger, “County Standardizing ‘Own Recognizance’ Releases,” Santa Barbara Independent, December 15, 2016.

Quick answer: Yes. A California court can increase bail under the applicable legal procedure, even after a defendant has posted bail and been released. That authority has limits. Penal Code 1289 requires good cause for the later adjustment it covers, and current constitutional rules require an individualized release analysis. A higher amount may affect custody and existing bond arrangements. Obtain the actual new order and contact defense counsel and the bail agent promptly instead of assuming the original amount or agreement still controls every step.

Updated September 27, 2026. This guide focuses on changes to bail during an adult California criminal case before trial. It uses current statutes and published California decisions, including the April 2026 Kowalczyk opinion. Federal cases, sentenced custody and different supervision proceedings require their own analysis.

First Identify Which Kind of Bail Change Occurred

In this guide: Initial setting or later change | Good cause | Another judge | Hearing and notice | Financial limits | Custody effects | Existing payments and bonds | Preparing a response | Examples | After the ruling | How Bail Hotline can help | FAQ

The First Court Setting and a Later Increase Are Not the Same Step

A family may first learn a bail amount from a booking record or a county schedule. Later, a judge addresses release in the actual case. Another change can occur after an earlier judicial order. These events may all look like the amount went up, but the legal starting point matters.

Penal Code 1269b distinguishes amounts based on a warrant or schedule from the amount fixed by the judge after the defendant has appeared on the charge. Start with the current order and the stage of the case rather than assuming the first number displayed online can never change.

For the full initial-setting and county-schedule explanation, see our California bail-amount guide. This article concerns identifying and responding to a later change, including its effect on someone who has already arranged release.

Identify the case and order behind each number

Match the defendant, booking and case number. Record the date of the earlier amount, where it came from and the date of the new decision. A new criminal case, an amended charging document and a modification in the existing case should not be treated as interchangeable.

Ask counsel which proceeding produced the change and which rule governs it. A statement that the charges changed should be checked against the actual filed document. Do not assume that every change in a charge label automatically requires a particular increase or that the judge has simply converted one offense into another because of a prior record.

What Good Cause Means for a Later Bail Adjustment

Penal Code 1289 states that after a defendant has been admitted to bail on an indictment or information, the court where the charge is pending may increase or reduce bail upon good cause shown. The statute's procedural setting is important; counsel should identify its application rather than treating it as the complete rule for every booking or first appearance.

The request needs a legally relevant basis. The record should identify what facts, circumstances or procedural developments are being relied on and why they matter to release. A family's useful first question is what changed and where that change appears in the record.

Relevant considerations include safety and appearance

Section 1275 identifies public protection, seriousness of the charge, prior criminal record and the probability of appearing. Public safety is the primary consideration. The statute also identifies matters bearing on seriousness, including alleged injury, threats and weapon use.

That does not create a mechanical increase for every allegation. Counsel can examine the source, timing and accuracy of the information, its relevance to the particular release question, and any appropriate response or condition. A new assertion and an established fact should not be silently treated as the same thing.

Keep the focus on the actual reason for the proposed change. If the question concerns an appearance history, provide the relevant court records. If it concerns compliance with an order, identify the order and the conduct alleged. General assurances that someone is a good person may not address the issue the court is considering.

Can a Different Judge Simply Replace the Earlier Amount?

Not merely because the second judge believes the first judge made a legal error. In In re Alberto (2002), the Court of Appeal addressed a later judge increasing bail on that basis. It held that disagreement with the earlier judge's legal decision did not supply the good cause required in that setting.

The opinion explained that a later hearing could consider changed circumstances relating to the defendant or proceedings. It also distinguished another judge's reconsideration from the original judge's ability to revisit the original ruling. The decision therefore should not be read as a rule that bail can never change once any judge has acted.

The remedy in Alberto did not freeze bail forever

The appellate court granted the habeas petition and directed a further hearing consistent with its reasoning or restoration of the earlier amount. It left room for a properly supported later decision. It did not hold that the first order was necessarily correct in every respect or guarantee that no increase could occur on remand.

For a family, the practical point is to preserve the earlier order and hearing record. Counsel needs to know what the earlier judge actually considered and what basis is offered now. A disagreement about the original ruling and genuinely changed circumstances can lead to different procedural questions.

Which Hearing and Notice Rules Apply?

The answer depends on the offense, procedural stage and authority being used. Do not assume every change follows the same notice period or that every increase may occur through an informal request.

Penal Code 1270.1 requires an open-court hearing before certain listed defendants are released on OR or on an amount different from the schedule, subject to its exception. The section provides two-court-day written notice to the prosecution and defense and an opportunity to be heard. It also requires the stated reasons for a departure from the schedule to be recorded.

Those requirements should not be shortened to every bail change requires two days' notice. The same section contains a specific exception connected to section 1269c, allowing an above-schedule increase in its defined circumstances based on a sworn peace officer's declaration without that hearing. Counsel should check the complete provision and the actual record.

A requested reduction also has procedural requirements

Section 1289 requires notice to the District Attorney when the defendant applies for a reduction under that section. Other requirements may depend on the case and the request. Contacting the bail company or asking the clerk for a copy of an order is not the same as submitting the appropriate legal application.

Ask counsel what must be filed or presented, who must receive notice and whether an immediate request is needed. Preserve the filing, service and hearing information. Do not assume that a request is already before the judge merely because a family member has asked someone to look into it.

An Increase Still Has to Respect Current Release Protections

The power to adjust bail does not remove constitutional limits. California Constitution article I, section 12 prohibits excessive bail and defines the constitutional exceptions to the general right to bail. The required analysis concerns the person and case, not simply a larger number.

In In re Humphrey (2021), the California Supreme Court required consideration of ability to pay and less restrictive alternatives before money bail is used as a release condition. A hearing should address the actual safety and appearance concerns and whether appropriate nonfinancial conditions can meet them.

The 2026 Kowalczyk decision supplies current guidance

In In re Kowalczyk, decided April 30, 2026, the Supreme Court clarified that noncapital pretrial detention is limited to the constitutional circumstances it identified. When money bail is necessary, the amount generally must be reasonably attainable under an individualized assessment of the total circumstances, including financial resources.

The decision also reiterates the need for clear-and-convincing findings, stated in the record, that nonfinancial conditions will not reasonably protect the state's interests in public safety and appearance before release is conditioned on money bail. The reasons and supporting evidence matter alongside the amount.

Reasonably attainable does not mean merely convenient. The court also explained that unsupported assertions of inability to pay need not be accepted. Bring accurate financial information and a concrete explanation of alternatives through counsel rather than assuming either that hardship is irrelevant or that stating an inability to pay automatically ends the inquiry.

The decision did not order Kowalczyk released in April 2026; his petition had become moot, and the court affirmed the dismissal while disapproving inconsistent reasoning. Its legal guidance should be used with the facts and current orders in the reader's own case.

A good appearance record is relevant but not a guarantee

Past compliance can be useful evidence, but it does not promise that the same amount must remain. Section 1275(c) also addresses additional findings for certain below-schedule reductions and says prior appearances or the absence of new offenses alone are not its unusual circumstances. Counsel should address the relevant statutes together with current constitutional requirements.

Can the Defendant Return to Custody After Bail Is Raised?

Yes, a higher order can have a custody consequence. Section 1289 expressly permits commitment to actual custody unless bail is given in the increased amount in the situation it covers. That possibility is why the timing and wording of the actual order matter.

Obtain the new amount, any custody direction, the deadline or next appearance stated by the court, and the conditions that continue. Do not assume there is an automatic grace period to arrange money or that a pending request for review suspends the order.

Identify every separate basis for custody

If a new case, warrant or supervision matter is involved, confirm each one separately. Section 1269b's release language concerns the offense on which bail is posted. A favorable decision or completed bond in one matter does not necessarily resolve all others.

Probation and parole issues also require the rules for those proceedings. Our California probation-violation guide explains that separate area. Do not apply a general pretrial bail description to every person who is already serving a sentence or is held under another supervision process.

If the family cannot tell why the person remains detained, request a clear explanation of the current custody record and give it to counsel. Guessing from a single number can cause the family to arrange a payment that does not accomplish the expected release.

What to Check About the Existing Cash Deposit or Bond

The court's bail amount, a cash deposit and a commercial premium are different things. A change to one should not be treated as an automatic explanation of what happens to every prior payment or agreement.

A higher court amount is not a complete private price quote

Give the agent the actual order and identify the existing bond. Ask what arrangement can be considered, what documents would be needed and what the proposed charges or payment terms are. Do not assume a prior agreement automatically expands to every new amount or case.

Title 10, section 2081 distinguishes permitted premium, collateral and specified expense collections. Ask for the basis of the actual proposal rather than calculating a new obligation from a remembered advertising phrase.

If another person signed or pledged property, have that person's role explained before new documents are executed. Our co-signer responsibility guide covers the broader financial commitments. A court order and a private promise should be reviewed together without assuming they are identical.

Keep the old and new records connected

Retain the original receipt or bond number, the new order and any proposed replacement or additional documents. Ask how the records relate to one another. If a cash deposit is involved, obtain the receiving court or agency's instructions rather than treating the company as the custodian of that deposit.

Do not cancel or disregard an existing arrangement based only on an expectation that a new one will be approved. Confirm what is actually required and completed. The new court order, the agency's proposed terms and the eventual custody record are separate pieces of the process.

Prepare the Record for a Request to Review the Increase

Contact defense counsel promptly and explain whether the defendant is still out of custody, was remanded or is facing a stated deadline. Provide the complete order and hearing information, not only a message saying that bail increased.

A useful record includes the earlier order, any available transcript or minute entry, the request for change, supporting declarations or allegations, the court's stated reasons, and the new order. Keep case numbers and dates clear if there is more than one proceeding.

Address the reason the court was given

If the requested increase relies on a missed hearing, obtain the appearance record and any explanation or correction. If it relies on a new alleged threat or violation, preserve the relevant records for counsel. If there is a dispute about what an earlier judge considered, the prior hearing record may be particularly important.

Keep factual corrections separate from arguments about the legal standard. A mistaken date and an argument that the wrong procedure was used are different issues. Counsel can determine what evidence and legal request are appropriate for each.

Document finances and realistic alternatives

When the new amount is not attainable, provide accurate information about resources and obligations in the form counsel requests. Identify what is actually available, what is only a possibility and what depends on another person's decision. Do not treat hoped-for help as money already committed.

Discuss practical conditions that might address the court's stated concerns, where appropriate. A proposed address, transportation arrangement, reporting plan or treatment placement should be described accurately, including whether it is confirmed. These proposals are not automatic substitutes for the order; they are matters counsel may present for the court's consideration.

Ask about the proper review route

Depending on the issue and stage, counsel may consider a request in the trial court or an appropriate writ proceeding. Alberto illustrates that procedure can matter when the challenge concerns another judge's treatment of an earlier order. The correct route and timing require review of the individual record.

A family should not assume that an ordinary complaint to an agency changes the court's order, or that every bail ruling follows the same appeal deadline. Obtain advice promptly and keep complying with requirements that remain in force unless the proper authority changes them.

Three Hypothetical Bail-Change Situations

These examples are fictional and identify questions to investigate. They do not predict an amount, release outcome or ruling.

The booking amount differs from the first judicial order

A family saw an amount on a booking record, but the judge sets a different amount at the first appearance. Counsel identifies the initial-setting procedure, the current order and the financial and nonfinancial release issues. The family does not assume the earlier booking number was an unchangeable judicial decision.

A later request relies on information already considered

Another judge is asked to increase an existing amount based on criticism of the earlier ruling. Counsel obtains the earlier record and examines whether the request concerns changed circumstances, the proper review of a claimed legal error or another applicable basis. Alberto's distinction is relevant, but the particular record still needs analysis.

A new amount is ordered while the original bond remains in the file

The defendant and family contact counsel and the agent with the exact new order. They confirm custody instructions, what bond arrangement is available and whose agreement is needed. They do not assume that the earlier premium receipt automatically proves the new order has been satisfied.

Confirm the Court's Decision and the Next Required Step

After a review hearing, obtain the written ruling and verify the operative amount and conditions. If the court changes the order again, make sure counsel, the relevant custody office and the bail agent are working from the same decision.

Record the next appearance, required reporting and any document or payment step. Keep proof of what was filed, accepted or posted. An agreed proposal is different from a completed bond, and a completed bond is different from confirmation that every custody basis has been resolved.

If the amount stays the same, ask counsel what the ruling means and whether any further review is appropriate. Do not treat an unsuccessful request as permission to ignore the order. If an appearance issue has already occurred, our bond-revocation guide supplies related context without replacing prompt case-specific help.

How Bail Hotline Can Help

Everything above this section is written to be useful whether or not you ever call us. This is the one place we talk about ourselves.

Bail Hotline has been family-owned since 2004 and operates through DMCG, Inc., licensed by the California Department of Insurance under license 1845394. Our team is available 24/7 at (888) 958-1228.

Bail changed? Bring the new order so the bond conversation starts with the right information.

Our team can help explain the available bond process using the current case and bail information, identify the agreement questions that need attention and walk each cosigner through the commitment. Dedicated posting agents are available around the clock.

A large, complicated or out-of-county bond is not an automatic no; we consider the particular situation. Support through the case includes text court-date reminders and appropriate warrant walk-through assistance when an appearance problem needs attention.

Keep defense counsel involved in the request to change or review the court's order. Every case is different, and the judge makes the final decision on court matters. We coordinate available bond steps without promising a reduction, approval, continued freedom or a particular release time.

Use the locations directory for another office and the bail FAQ for general process questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can bail increase after the defendant has already been released?

Yes, under the applicable legal authority and procedure. Posting the earlier amount does not freeze every later release decision. Obtain the new order, its basis and any custody direction, then address both the legal review and the available bond steps.

Does Penal Code 1289 cover every change to a booking amount?

Its text addresses a defendant already admitted to bail upon an indictment or information. A first judicial setting, a scheduled booking amount and a later modification can involve different rules. Counsel should identify the actual stage before selecting the legal standard.

Can another judge raise bail just because the first judge was supposedly wrong?

Alberto rejected that basis in the circumstances before it. The case permits a later hearing based on appropriate changed circumstances and distinguishes the original judge's reconsideration. It is not a rule that every later increase is invalid.

Does the court have to consider whether the higher amount can be paid?

Current constitutional decisions require an individualized financial and release analysis. Humphrey addresses ability to pay and alternatives; Kowalczyk explains reasonably attainable bail within the constitutional framework. Provide accurate supporting information rather than assuming an unsupported assertion settles the issue.

Is two days' notice required for every increase?

Do not assume that. Section 1270.1 has defined hearing and two-court-day notice requirements, and it includes a specific exception associated with section 1269c. The offense, stage and authority used must be checked.

Does a higher bail amount automatically tell me the new company charge?

No. The court amount and the private agreement are different. Ask the agency to explain the actual proposed bond, payment, security and signature requirements, and how they relate to the existing arrangement.

Can one new bond clear every other hold?

Not necessarily. A separate case, warrant or supervision matter can require its own action. Confirm all current custody bases before assuming that satisfying one order will result in release.

What should a family do first after learning bail was raised?

Get the actual current order and identify the case, amount, reasons and custody instructions. Contact defense counsel promptly and give the bail agent the updated information. Keep the old and new records together so everyone is addressing the same change.

Sources and Scope

The primary authorities are the cited California Constitution and Penal Code provisions, the actual published Alberto, Humphrey and Kowalczyk opinions, and the limited bail-regulation discussion. The case examples are dated legal decisions; the three practical scenarios are explicitly fictional.

This guide supplies no automatic increase formula, probability of staying out of custody or guaranteed review result. The earlier order, reason for the change, current law and complete record determine the appropriate response in an individual case.

Quick answer: Bail is “excessive” when a court sets it higher than reasonably necessary to do bail’s job: bringing the person back to court and protecting the public and the alleged victim. The Eighth Amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required,” and California’s Constitution says it twice, in article I, section 12 and article I, section 28(f)(3): “Excessive bail may not be required.” On April 30, 2026, the California Supreme Court stated the modern test in one sentence in In re Kowalczyk: “Bail is excessive when it is higher than reasonably necessary to promote those purposes of bail.” It added that bail that is “objectively unattainable or artificially high” in light of the person’s finances and the purposes of bail “would also be excessive.” That does not make every large amount unlawful. Bail does not have to be easy or convenient to pay, and a person who says they cannot pay has to prove it with reliable evidence. If bail looks too high, the path runs through the defense lawyer and the judge: ask for release on conditions or a lower amount at or before arraignment, use the automatic bail review California requires within five days for people held for lack of bail, return with new information if circumstances change, and, if a trial court will not fix a real problem, consider a habeas corpus petition.

Updated September 2026. Written for California families, cosigners and people facing a bail amount that seems out of reach. Checked on September 29, 2026 against the U.S. and California Constitutions, the California Penal Code, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court, and federal immigration law. General information, not legal advice.

This guide answers one question: when is bail so high that the law calls it excessive, and what can a family do about it? It does not list bail amounts for particular charges; our guide to bail amounts by crime in California covers county schedules. If a judge raised bail after it was set, see can a judge raise bail. If bail was refused altogether, read our guide to being denied bail in California. To get ready for the hearing itself, see how to prepare for a bail hearing in California.

Excessive Bail at a Glance

In this guide: What excessive bail means | When you cannot afford it | What is not excessive | How bail gets set | How to challenge it | Immigration bonds (ICE) | Real cases and examples | Checklist | How Bail Hotline can help | FAQ | Sources

What Excessive Bail Means

Bail is the security a court accepts so that a person charged with a crime can go home while the case is pending, on the promise to come back. The excessive-bail question asks whether the amount, or the way it was chosen, goes further than that purpose can justify. Two bodies of law answer it for California families: the federal Constitution, which sets a floor for every state, and California’s own Constitution, which gives more.

The federal rule: the Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The U.S. Supreme Court has said that its ban on excessive bail “has been assumed to have application to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment” (Schilb v. Kuebel, 1971).

The leading case came out of a California federal court. In Stack v. Boyle (1951), twelve people were charged with conspiring to violate the Smith Act, a federal sedition law. “Upon their arrest, bail was fixed for each petitioner in the widely varying amounts of $2,500, $7,500, $75,000 and $100,000.” Then “bail was fixed in the District Court for the Southern District of California in the uniform amount of $50,000 for each petitioner.” The defendants submitted “statements as to their financial resources, family relationships, health, prior criminal records, and other information.” According to the Court, “The only evidence offered by the Government was a certified record showing that four persons previously convicted under the Smith Act in the Southern District of New York had forfeited bail.”

The Court’s answer still frames the whole subject:

• The purpose: “The right to release before trial is conditioned upon the accused’s giving adequate assurance that he will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty.”
• The test: “Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is ‘excessive’ under the Eighth Amendment.”
• The individual focus: “The fixing of bail for any individual defendant must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant.”
• The warning: “To infer from the fact of indictment alone a need for bail in an unusually high amount is an arbitrary act.”

The Court also explained why the rule matters: “Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.” On procedure, it held that the defendants’ remedy was a motion to reduce bail in their criminal case, with an appeal if the motion was denied. It sent the case back so that route could be used. The Justices did not pick a new number themselves, which is a useful reminder that the fix for excessive bail usually happens in the trial court.

Thirty-six years later, United States v. Salerno (1987) upheld the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, which “allows a federal court to detain an arrestee pending trial if the Government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence after an adversary hearing that no release conditions ‘will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community.'” Salerno added two points that still shape excessive-bail arguments. The clause “says nothing about whether bail shall be available at all.” And bail can serve safety as well as court appearance, so the measure of excess depends on the goal: “To determine whether the Government’s response is excessive, we must compare that response against the interest the Government seeks to protect by means of that response.”

California’s rule is older, and in one way stronger

California’s first Constitution, in 1849, said: “All persons shall be bailable, by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great.” A separate section said: “Excessive bail shall not be required.” The California Supreme Court quoted both in Kowalczyk, along with its own 1973 explanation that the promise that all persons shall be bailable was “consciously added to the ‘no excessive bail’ language adopted from the Eighth Amendment” to make clear that, “unlike the federal rule, all except the one class of defendants were to be bailable.”

That is the key difference. The federal clause limits the amount when bail is allowed. California’s Constitution also gives most people charged with noncapital crimes a right to bail in the first place. Today, section 12 provides that a person “shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties,” with exceptions for capital cases and for certain felony cases in subdivisions (b) and (c), and it repeats: “Excessive bail may not be required.”

A second provision, section 28(f)(3), came from Proposition 9, the “Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law.” It says a person “may be released on bail by sufficient sureties,” repeats “Excessive bail may not be required,” and adds: “Public safety and the safety of the victim shall be the primary considerations.” In Kowalczyk, the court read the two provisions together. For noncapital cases, a trial court “has the authority to deny bail only as to offenses specified in section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c),” and section 28(f)(3) “does not expand the list of offenses for which release on bail may be denied.”

The 2026 California test in plain words

Kowalczyk gives California its clearest statement of what excessive bail is:

• “Bail is excessive when it is higher than reasonably necessary to promote those purposes of bail.”
• “However, bail that is objectively unattainable or artificially high under the relevant circumstances, including the defendant’s financial situation and the purposes of bail, would also be excessive.”
• “But courts cannot use artificially high or objectively unattainable bail as an end run to effectuate pretrial detention where such detention is not authorized under section 12.”

Put simply, a California bail amount can be excessive in two ways. It can be more than the court’s legitimate goals of safety and appearance require. Or it can be set at a level the person cannot realistically reach, so that it works as a detention order in a case where the Constitution does not allow detention.

What bail is supposed to protect

The purposes come from Penal Code 1275. “In setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate shall take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case.” The statute adds: “The public safety shall be the primary consideration.” When the court weighs how serious the charge is, the statute points it to alleged injury to the victim, alleged threats to the victim or a witness, the use of a firearm or other deadly weapon, and certain facts in drug cases.

The Supreme Court’s own list, first set out in Humphrey and repeated in Kowalczyk, includes “the protection of the public as well as the victim, the seriousness of the charged offense, the arrestee’s previous criminal record and history of compliance with court orders, and the likelihood that the arrestee will appear at future court proceedings.” Kowalczyk adds that the circumstances also include “a defendant’s financial situation and resources available to satisfy a monetary bail order.”

Every excessive-bail argument comes back to those factors. A number is not excessive in the abstract. It is excessive, or not, compared with what this person’s release actually puts at risk.

Is Bail Excessive If You Cannot Afford It?

This is the question most families are really asking. California’s answer changed in 2021 and became sharper in 2026. Our guide to bail bonds for low-income families covers the practical side of paying; this section covers the legal standard.

In re Humphrey (2021): ability to pay has to be considered

In In re Humphrey, decided March 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court held: “The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.” The court pointed to other conditions of release, such as electronic monitoring, regular check-ins with a pretrial case manager, community housing or shelter, and drug and alcohol treatment, that “can in many cases protect public and victim safety as well as assure the arrestee’s appearance at trial.” Where money bail is still necessary, the court must consider the person’s ability to pay and “may not effectively detain the arrestee ‘solely because’ the arrestee ‘lacked the resources’ to post bail.”

Humphrey was decided under due process and equal protection, not the Eighth Amendment. The court said so directly: “the claim that bail is excessive under the Eighth Amendment is not one Humphrey makes in this case.” His complaint was about “the method by which his bail was determined.” That distinction matters in practice. A bail order can be challenged both for the process the judge used and for the amount the judge chose.

In re Kowalczyk (2026): bail generally must be reasonably attainable

After Humphrey, two appellate courts disagreed. One, in In re Brown (2022), said that if money bail is reasonably necessary, “then bail must be set for an amount [the petitioner] can afford.” The Court of Appeal in Kowalczyk (2022) disagreed, saying: “Though excessive bail cannot be imposed, courts are not required to set bail at an amount a defendant will necessarily be able to afford.” Both quotes come from the Supreme Court’s summary of the split.

The Supreme Court resolved it on April 30, 2026. It held that “a court must set pretrial bail in an amount that is reasonable given a noncapital defendant’s constitutional right to release on bail pending trial, the purposes of bail, and the defendant’s individual circumstances,” which, “as a general matter, means that bail must be set in an amount reasonably attainable for the defendant.” It explained the limit this way: “The right to release on bail generally cannot be conditioned on financial payments that are set at amounts known to be insurmountable or objectively unachievable based on the defendant’s demonstrated financial circumstances.”

What “reasonably attainable” does not mean

The same opinion is just as clear about what families should not expect:

• Not whatever is convenient. “This does not mean that bail may only be set in an amount that is easily affordable or convenient to the defendant, or that the court must accept unsupported, conclusory assertions of indigency or an inability to pay.”
• The defendant carries the burden. “If a defendant alleges the inability to pay a certain bail amount, the burden is on the defendant to support that allegation with reliable evidence.” The court compared this to fee waiver applications, which require “documentation of financial status.”
• Real effort counts. The court described unattainable bail as an amount the defendant cannot reach “despite ‘bona fide efforts to acquire the resources’ to pay it,” quoting a U.S. Supreme Court case about fines.
• Poverty alone is not the whole test. Kowalczyk quoted an 1879 California decision, Ex parte Duncan: “Undoubtedly the extent of the pecuniary ability of a prisoner to furnish bail is a circumstance among other circumstances to be considered in fixing the amount in which it is to be required, but it is not in itself controlling.”

So the honest answer is this. In California, being unable to pay is part of the excessive-bail test, not the end of it. A judge must weigh it, backed by real evidence, alongside safety and flight risk.

The order of decisions a California judge follows

Kowalczyk summarized its holdings as a sequence. In plain terms:

1. Start from release. The court began from the premise that pretrial “‘liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.'”
2. Consider release without money first. The court noted that in many cases “nonfinancial alternatives, such as ankle monitoring bracelets and court-ordered check-ins, suffice to ensure public safety and the defendant’s appearance at trial.” Our guide to what release on your own recognizance means explains O.R. release.
3. Money bail needs findings. A court may not require bail “unless the court has assessed the defendant’s financial situation and determined by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that no nonfinancial conditions of release will ‘reasonably vindicate [the state’s] interests'” in safety and appearance, and it must state those findings on the record.
4. Set a reasonable amount. If money bail is necessary, the amount must be “reasonable, considering the purposes of bail and based on an individualized assessment of the totality of the circumstances in a case, including the defendant’s financial situation.”
5. Detention is a separate path. A noncapital defendant may be held without bail “only in the circumstances specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 12,” which require specific findings by clear and convincing evidence. Kowalczyk held that the trial court in that case “erred in denying bail to petitioner without determining whether it could make the findings required for ordering pretrial detention.”

One question the court left open: wealthy defendants

The old rule of thumb says a very rich defendant can face a much higher number than a poor one because a small amount would not matter to them. Kowalczyk expressly left that scenario for another day. Its footnote 21 says the decision “does not reach a case in which a wealthy defendant who is facing a significant term of imprisonment on a felony charge but is not subject to detention under section 12 is found to present a threat to public or victim safety or a credible and significant risk of flight.” The court added: “We believe the soundest course is to allow courts to address these questions, and for the law to develop, as the issues arise.” For most families, the practical point runs the other way: the court’s rule protects people for whom a schedule amount is out of reach.

What Is Not Excessive Bail

Several common beliefs about excessive bail do not match the law. Knowing them helps a family focus on arguments a judge can actually use.

• “Any bail over a certain dollar figure is excessive.” There is no fixed number. Kowalczyk calls reasonable bail “necessarily an individualized assessment which will depend on numerous factors.” A large amount can be lawful for one person and excessive for another.
• “Bail above the schedule is automatically excessive.” Judges can set bail above the schedule when the facts support it. After a warrantless arrest, an officer who believes the scheduled amount is too low for a bailable felony, or for violating a domestic violence restraining order, can ask a magistrate for higher bail by sworn declaration under Penal Code 1269c. For listed serious, violent and domestic violence charges, Penal Code 1270.1 requires a hearing in open court before bail is set above or below the schedule or O.R. release is granted, and a judge who sets bail above or below the schedule must state the reasons on the record. Our guide on whether a judge can raise bail covers increases in detail.
• “Bail at the schedule amount cannot be excessive.” The schedule is set for a charge, not for a person. In Humphrey, the court observed that whether someone stays in jail often turns on the ability to post “the sum provided in a county’s uniform bail schedule” rather than an individualized decision. Humphrey’s own starting number, $600,000, was the schedule amount the prosecutor requested.
• “Bail should match the value of what was taken.” The 1879 Duncan case considered whether bail was excessive because it was “disproportionate to the amount which the prisoner is alleged to have obtained as the fruits of his crimes.” Courts look at the whole picture, including safety and record, not just the dollar value of an alleged theft.
• “Being denied bail is the same as excessive bail.” It is a different question. A no-bail order is a detention decision under section 12(b) or (c), which requires its own findings. See our guides to being denied bail and California’s no-bail law.
• “A co-defendant got lower bail, so mine is excessive.” Bail is individual. Stack v. Boyle says it “must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant.” Different records and different risks can justify different amounts. What Stack condemned was the reverse: identical high bail for everyone with no individual evidence.
• “Bail for a serious or violent felony can never go below the schedule.” Penal Code 1275(c) requires a judge who reduces bail below the schedule for a serious or violent felony to “make a finding of unusual circumstances and shall set forth those facts on the record.” It also says “‘unusual circumstances’ does not include the fact that the defendant has made all prior court appearances or has not committed any new offenses.” That statute remains in the code. How it applies alongside Humphrey and Kowalczyk in a particular case is a question for the defense lawyer and the judge. In Humphrey, the trial court did find unusual circumstances and lowered bail from $600,000 to $350,000.

How California Sets Bail, and Where Excessive-Bail Questions Come Up

Excessive-bail problems can arise at several points between arrest and trial. Each has its own rule, and knowing which one applies tells a family what to ask for and when.

At booking: the county bail schedule

Under Penal Code 1269b, “It is the duty of the superior court judges in each county to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a uniform countywide schedule of bail.” Before a person’s first court appearance, “the bail shall be in the amount fixed in the warrant of arrest or, if no warrant of arrest has been issued, the amount of bail shall be pursuant to the uniform countywide schedule.” In setting the felony schedule, “the judges shall consider the seriousness of the offense charged.” The schedule is a starting point written before anyone knows the person. Our guides to bail amounts by crime and bail deviation in Los Angeles explain how schedules and early changes work.

Before arraignment: a family member can ask for a different amount

Penal Code 1269c works in both directions after a warrantless arrest. An officer can ask for higher bail. And, except for charges listed in subdivision (a) of section 1270.1, “the defendant, either personally or through his or her attorney, friend, or family member, also may make application to the magistrate for release on bail lower than that provided in the schedule of bail or on his or her own recognizance.” The statute adds a timing protection: “If, after the application is made, no order changing the amount of bail is issued within eight hours after booking, the defendant shall be entitled to be released on posting the amount of bail set forth in the applicable bail schedule.” Ask the jail or the court how to submit one in that county. Officers use the same section to ask for higher bail after a warrantless arrest for a bailable felony or for violating a domestic violence restraining order; see our guide to bail for domestic violence.

Listed serious, violent and domestic violence charges: a hearing first

For serious and violent felonies and certain domestic violence and threat offenses, Penal Code 1270.1 requires a hearing in open court before the person “may be released on bail in an amount that is either more or less than the amount contained in the schedule of bail for the offense, or may be released on the person’s own recognizance.” “The prosecuting attorney and defense attorney shall be given a two-court-day written notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter.” The court considers past court appearances, the maximum possible sentence, danger to others, threats and past violence, and any evidence the arrested person offers about community ties and ability to post bond. A judge who sets bail above or below the schedule must state the reasons on the record.

Arraignment: usually within 48 hours

Under Penal Code 825, a person held in custody “shall in all cases be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays.” Arraignment is usually the first chance for the defense lawyer to ask a judge for O.R. release, conditions or a lower amount, with evidence. See how long it takes to see a judge for the timing details.

Held because you cannot post? An automatic review within five days

Penal Code 1270.2 is one of the most useful and least known rules for families: “When a person is detained in custody on a criminal charge prior to conviction for want of bail, that person is entitled to an automatic review of the order fixing the amount of the bail by the judge or magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense. That review shall be held not later than five days from the time of the original order fixing the amount of bail on the original accusatory pleading. The defendant may waive this review.” Humphrey challenged his bail with a motion for a formal bail hearing under this section. If your family member is still in custody because the bail cannot be posted, ask the lawyer about this review and bring the evidence to it.

Later in the case: good cause and changed circumstances

After a felony case moves to an indictment or information, Penal Code 1289 allows the court, “upon good cause shown,” to “either increase or reduce the amount of bail.” If the defendant asks for a reduction, “notice of the application must be served upon the District Attorney.” In In re Alberto (2002), a Court of Appeal held that “the good cause must be founded on changed circumstances relating to the defendant or the proceedings, not on the conclusion that another judge in previously setting bail committed legal error.” The practical lesson: a second request works best with something new, such as documented finances, a treatment bed, a job offer, a place to live away from the alleged victim, or a change in the charges.

When the trial court will not fix it: habeas corpus

Penal Code 1490 provides: “When a person is imprisoned or detained in custody on any criminal charge, for want of bail, such person is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of giving bail, upon averring that fact in his petition, without alleging that he is illegally confined.” Both Humphrey and Kowalczyk reached the higher courts through habeas petitions. These petitions take time and are handled by lawyers. Kowalczyk himself took a plea for time served while his petition was pending, and the Supreme Court decided his case anyway because it “raises important issues capable of repetition” that are likely to evade review.

Federal court is different. Stack v. Boyle says the remedy there is a motion to reduce bail and an appeal. The federal Bail Reform Act also says: “The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person” (18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(2)).

How to Challenge Bail That Seems Too High

The legal rules above only help if the judge hears the right facts at the right time. These steps come straight from what Humphrey, Kowalczyk and the statutes say a court must weigh.

Start with the lawyer, and start early

A bail argument is made by the defense lawyer, or by the defendant, to a judge. A family can help most by getting a lawyer involved before arraignment and by gathering evidence. If the family cannot afford a private lawyer, ask about the public defender at the first court date. Kowalczyk notes that courts may require people requesting the public defender “to submit financial statements under penalty of perjury,” so be ready to document income honestly.

Bring reliable evidence, not just a statement

Kowalczyk puts the burden on the defendant to show inability to pay “with reliable evidence.” Useful documents can include:

• recent pay stubs, benefits letters or proof of unemployment;
• a simple list of monthly expenses and dependents;
• bank statements showing what is actually available;
• what relatives could realistically contribute, and in what form;
• a letter from an employer confirming a job to return to;
• proof of a stable address and how long the person has lived there;
• records showing past court appearances were kept;
• an acceptance letter from a treatment program, if substance use is part of the story (Humphrey offered one).

The defendants in Stack v. Boyle did the same kind of thing in 1951, submitting “statements as to their financial resources, family relationships, health, prior criminal records, and other information.”

Ask for a specific, workable outcome

A judge responds better to a concrete plan than to a general complaint. Options include O.R. release with conditions, supervised release, a lower amount, or a combination. Kowalczyk notes that “a court might consider whether available nonfinancial alternatives could be used in combination with a lower bail amount to meet state interests in a given case.” If safety is the concern, offer conditions aimed at it, such as a stay-away order, a different address or electronic monitoring. If flight is the concern, offer check-ins, surrender of a passport, or family members who will make sure the person gets to court.

Ask the judge to state findings

Humphrey described “the court’s obligation to set forth the reasons for its decision on the record and to include them in the court’s minutes.” Kowalczyk requires findings before money bail is imposed. Findings matter because they show whether the court weighed ability to pay and alternatives, and they give a reviewing court something to review.

Protect the record going forward

A person’s “history of compliance with court orders” is one of the listed factors, so every kept court date helps at the next bail review, and every missed one hurts. If a date is missed, act the same day; our guide to what happens after a failure to appear explains why. Never overstate or hide finances in a bail request, and never contact a person protected by a stay-away order to “smooth things over.” Either one can turn a winnable bail argument into a lost one.

Excessive Bail and Immigration Bonds (ICE)

Some families face a California criminal case and detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the same time. The excessive-bail rules in this guide do not carry over neatly, because immigration detention is civil. In Carlson v. Landon (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court said, “Deportation is not a criminal proceeding, and has never been held to be punishment.” ICE and immigration judges set immigration bonds under federal law, and California’s bail provisions, Humphrey and Kowalczyk do not govern them.

Ability to pay has still come up. In Hernandez v. Sessions, filed October 2, 2017, immigrants detained in the Central District of California challenged bond practices, including under the Excessive Bail Clause. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction and wrote: “A bond determination process that does not include consideration of financial circumstances and alternative release conditions is unlikely to result in a bond amount that is reasonably related to the government’s legitimate interests.” One named plaintiff, first ordered released only “upon payment of a $60,000 bond,” was later ordered released on a $5,000 bond and enrollment in the “Alternatives to Detention” program.

The case, later captioned Hernandez v. Garland, ended in a class settlement that a federal court approved on March 29, 2022, according to the ACLU of Southern California. The immigration court’s notice of final settlement states that “ICE and IJs must consider an individual’s ability to pay a bond” and “may not set bond at a greater amount than necessary to ensure the individual’s appearance at future immigration proceedings.” The class notice limits the class to people detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) in the Central District of California and found eligible for bond. An immigration attorney can say whether it reaches a particular person today.

One rule holds in every case: paying California bail does not resolve an immigration case, and an immigration bond does not satisfy California bail. Our guide to how immigration bonds differ from regular bail bonds covers bond amounts, bond hearings, paying ICE, ICE holds, and what to do if ICE detains someone out on bail.

How This Plays Out: Real Cases and Hypothetical Examples

Real case: Kenneth Humphrey, San Francisco

Humphrey was 66 when he was arrested on May 23, 2017, and charged with first degree residential robbery and burglary against an elderly man who lived in the same senior home, among other counts, with prior strike allegations. The complaining witness said Humphrey followed him into his apartment and demanded money. According to the Supreme Court’s account, after the man “handed over $2, Humphrey stole an additional $5 as well as a bottle of cologne.”

The prosecutor asked for $600,000 bail, “as recommended by the bail schedule,” and the court set that amount. At a later hearing, the court found unusual circumstances and reduced bail to $350,000, but the public defender warned that Humphrey was too poor “to make even $350,000 bail.” The trial court “did not comment on Humphrey’s inability to afford bail.” The Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing, and on remand the trial court released Humphrey on nonfinancial conditions, including electronic monitoring, a stay-away order and a residential treatment program for seniors. The Supreme Court affirmed in 2021. The lesson for families: the winning argument was not “the number is big.” It was that the judge never weighed what Humphrey could pay or whether conditions could do the job.

Real case: Gerald Kowalczyk, San Mateo County

In January 2021, Kowalczyk tried to buy a hamburger at a fast-food restaurant using six credit cards, three of which belonged to people who had lost them. He was charged with felony and misdemeanor counts, including identity theft. At arraignment, the court denied O.R. release and set bail at $75,000. At a later hearing, citing 64 prior convictions, past noncompliance while on O.R. release and concern about future appearances, the court denied bail altogether. He filed a habeas petition. While it was pending, he pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor identity theft count in exchange for time served and was released.

The Supreme Court still decided the legal questions. It held that the trial court “erred in denying bail to petitioner without determining whether it could make the findings required for ordering pretrial detention,” and it announced the reasonably attainable bail rule described above. The lesson: a long record can justify conditions and a real bail amount, but it does not by itself allow a court to skip the constitutional steps.

Hypothetical 1: a nonviolent felony and a family with modest income

This example is invented to show how the rules work. Marisol’s brother is arrested without a warrant in Fresno County on a nonviolent felony that is not on the section 1270.1 list. The schedule amount is far beyond anything the family can raise. Before arraignment, Marisol asks the jail how to submit a Penal Code 1269c application for release on O.R. or lower bail, and she gathers her brother’s pay stubs, lease and a letter from his employer. At arraignment, the defense lawyer presents that evidence and proposes check-ins plus a lower amount. The judge weighs the factors, states findings, and sets a lower amount with conditions. Nothing here is guaranteed; the point is that the judge had evidence to work with.

Hypothetical 2: a serious felony and a history of missed court dates

This example is invented. Darnell is charged in Los Angeles County with a serious felony. He missed two court dates in an earlier case. The judge sets bail above what his family can post. His lawyer argues the amount is unattainable, but the prosecutor points to the missed dates and the victim’s safety. Under Kowalczyk, the judge must still weigh his finances, consider whether conditions such as GPS monitoring could work, and state findings. A high but reachable amount paired with strict conditions may be lawful here. An amount set only to keep him in jail would not be. If the court believes nothing short of custody can protect safety, its route is a detention order, available only if the charge and facts fit section 12(b) or (c) and the court makes the required findings, not an unreachable number.

Hypothetical 3: two defendants, one case, different bail

This example is invented. Two friends are arrested together in Sacramento County. One has no record and a steady job; the other has an open warrant from another county. The judge sets a higher amount for the second. That difference is not excessive by itself, because Stack v. Boyle requires bail to be based on standards relevant to each defendant. The better argument for the second friend is evidence about his own situation: why the warrant happened, what conditions he can meet, and what he can actually pay.

What Families Should Do: A Practical Checklist

1. Confirm where the person is held and what the jail has on record. Our guide to finding out if someone is in jail walks through California searches.
2. Write down the basics. Charges, booking number, bail amount, case number and next court date.
3. Ask about a Penal Code 1269c application for lower bail or O.R. release before arraignment, if the arrest was made without a warrant and the charge is not on the 1270.1 list.
4. Get a lawyer involved early, or ask about the public defender at the first court date.
5. Gather financial evidence: pay stubs, benefits letters, bank statements, expenses, and what relatives can realistically contribute.
6. Gather release evidence: proof of address, a job letter, family ties, past court appearances kept, and any treatment program acceptance.
7. Propose a concrete plan: conditions, a lower amount, or both, aimed at the court’s actual concerns.
8. Track the five-day review under Penal Code 1270.2 if the person stays in custody for lack of bail.
9. Ask whether the judge stated findings. If bail was set or denied without them, ask the lawyer about a new hearing or a habeas petition.
10. Once released, follow every condition and keep every date. Compliance is part of the record at every future bail decision.
11. If ICE is involved, treat it as a second case with its own lawyer, deadlines and bond rules.

How Bail Hotline Can Help

Everything above this section is written to be useful whether or not you ever call us. This is the one place we talk about ourselves.

Bail Hotline is a family-owned bail bond company that has served California families since 2004. We are licensed through our parent company, DMCG, Inc., with the California Department of Insurance (license #1845394). Reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at (888) 958-1228.

Bail set higher than you expected? This is where we help most

When bail comes back higher than a family imagined, the first hours are about getting clear facts and knowing what is possible. That is where we do our best work.

• A large, complicated or out-of-county bond is not an automatic no. A high number is where many families assume the answer will be no. With us, it is not automatic.
• Jail information quickly, at no charge. Our agents gather inmate information for all jails quickly and at no charge, and every Bail Hotline office holds accounts with the jail systems, so you know what the jail has on record before you decide anything.
• Posting agents on duty 24/7. When the court sets or changes bail, our dedicated posting agents work around the clock, including nights, weekends and holidays.
• Every cosigner is walked through the agreement. Before anyone signs, an agent explains what the cosigner is agreeing to and answers questions. Our guide to your role as a bail bond cosigner covers the basics.
• Warrant walk-throughs. If there is also a warrant, we walk you through the steps to address it.

The amount of bail is the court’s decision. A request to lower it is made by the defense lawyer to the judge, and it can take place while you talk with us about options. Every case is different, and we cannot promise approval, a release time or any result in the case.

After release: protecting the record for the next bail decision

• Text court-date reminders. We send text reminders of court dates, because a clean appearance record matters at every later bail review.
• Signing out of a bond. A cosigner may be able to sign out of a bond that is in good standing, meaning there are no past-due payments and the defendant has not missed court or daily online check-ins. We explain how it works case by case. See our guide to removing a cosigner’s name from a bail bond.
• If ICE detains someone who is out on bail, call us right away.

The services above concern California criminal bail. An immigration bond is posted with ICE under federal rules, and that is the work of our sister company, Liberty Immigration Bonds, which handles immigration bonds. Both companies are part of DMCG, Inc., and Liberty’s staff speak English and Spanish.

Find a Bail Hotline office

Find more offices in our locations directory, start online with online bail bonds, or read quick answers in our bail FAQ.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is considered excessive bail in California?

Bail is excessive when it is higher than reasonably necessary to protect public and victim safety and secure the person’s appearance in court. The California Supreme Court said in In re Kowalczyk (2026) that bail that is “objectively unattainable or artificially high” under the circumstances, including the person’s finances, is also excessive. There is no fixed dollar figure; the judge must make an individualized decision.

Which amendment protects against excessive bail?

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Excessive bail shall not be required.” California’s Constitution has its own protection in article I, sections 12 and 28(f)(3), which both say “Excessive bail may not be required.” California’s section 12 also gives most people charged with noncapital crimes a right to bail.

Is bail excessive if I cannot afford it?

Not automatically, but affordability is part of the test. Under Humphrey (2021) and Kowalczyk (2026), a judge must consider ability to pay and, where money bail is necessary and detention is not authorized, generally set an amount that is reasonably attainable. The amount does not have to be easy or convenient, and the defendant must support a claimed inability to pay with reliable evidence.

What is an example of excessive bail?

The classic example is Stack v. Boyle (1951), where a federal court in California set bail at $50,000 for each of twelve defendants with no individual evidence beyond forfeitures by other people in another case. The Supreme Court called bail excessive when it is set higher than an amount reasonably calculated to assure appearance. In California, Humphrey’s $350,000 bail was set aside because the judge never considered whether he could pay or whether conditions would work.

How do I get my bail lowered in California?

Through the defense lawyer and the judge. Options include a Penal Code 1269c application before arraignment (after a warrantless arrest, for charges not on the 1270.1 list), a request at arraignment, the automatic review within five days under Penal Code 1270.2 for someone held for lack of bail, a later motion showing good cause under Penal Code 1289, and a habeas corpus petition. Bring documents about finances, ties and a workable release plan.

How long does it take to get a bail reduction hearing?

It depends on the route. A Penal Code 1269c application has an eight-hour window: if no order changing bail is issued within eight hours after booking, the person can be released by posting the schedule amount. Arraignment generally happens within 48 hours of arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays. The automatic review under Penal Code 1270.2 must be held within five days of the original bail order unless the defendant waives it.

Can a judge set bail higher than the bail schedule?

Yes, when the facts support it. After a warrantless arrest, an officer can request higher bail by sworn declaration under Penal Code 1269c, and for listed serious, violent and domestic violence charges, Penal Code 1270.1 requires a hearing before bail is set above or below the schedule, with reasons stated on the record. The amount still has to be reasonable for this person. See our guide on whether a judge can raise bail.

Can a bail bondsman lower my bail?

No. Only a court sets or changes the bail amount. A bail agent can help a family understand the amount on record, explain how posting would work, and act quickly once the court rules. The request to lower bail goes through the defense lawyer.

Is being denied bail the same as excessive bail?

No. A no-bail order is a detention decision. For noncapital cases in California, Kowalczyk held that detention is allowed only in the felony situations described in article I, section 12(b) and (c), after findings by clear and convincing evidence. Excessive bail is a different problem: an amount set too high for its purpose or out of reach. Our guide to being denied bail covers detention.

Does the excessive bail rule apply to immigration bonds?

Not in the same way. Immigration detention is civil and follows federal immigration law, not California’s bail provisions. Ability to pay can still matter: in Hernandez v. Sessions (2017), the Ninth Circuit said a bond process that ignores financial circumstances and alternatives is unlikely to produce a bond reasonably related to the government’s interests, and a 2022 settlement in that case set ability-to-pay requirements for the class it covers. Our guide to immigration bonds and regular bail bonds explains the rest.

Why We Publish This

Families usually learn the bail amount at the worst possible moment, and “excessive bail” can sound like either a guaranteed fix or a hopeless complaint. It is neither. It is a real legal standard with a history that runs from the Bill of Rights through California’s 1849 Constitution to a California Supreme Court decision in April 2026. We wrote this guide so families can understand what judges must weigh and what evidence helps. This page is general information, not legal advice. For advice about a specific case, talk to a criminal defense lawyer, and for immigration custody, an immigration attorney.

Sources and Further Reading

Constitutional text

• U.S. Constitution, Eighth Amendment (Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress)
• California Constitution, article I, section 12 and article I, section 28

California statutes

• Penal Code 825 (time to arraignment)
• Penal Code 1269b (countywide bail schedules)
• Penal Code 1269c (applications for higher or lower bail before arraignment)
• Penal Code 1270.1 (hearing for listed offenses)
• Penal Code 1270.2 (automatic bail review within five days)
• Penal Code 1275 (factors in setting, reducing or denying bail)
• Penal Code 1289 (increase or reduction on good cause)
• Penal Code 1490 (habeas corpus for want of bail)

California court decisions

• In re Kowalczyk, California Supreme Court, April 30, 2026
• In re Humphrey, California Supreme Court, March 25, 2021
• In re Alberto, California Court of Appeal, 2002

U.S. Supreme Court decisions

• Stack v. Boyle, November 5, 1951
• Carlson v. Landon, March 10, 1952
• Schilb v. Kuebel, 1971
• United States v. Salerno, May 26, 1987

Federal statutes and immigration cases

• 18 U.S.C. 3142 (federal pretrial release)
• 8 U.S.C. 1226 (immigration arrest, detention and bond)
• Hernandez v. Sessions, Ninth Circuit, October 2, 2017
• Hernandez v. Garland notice of final settlement (Executive Office for Immigration Review)
• Hernandez v. Garland case page (ACLU of Southern California; settlement approved March 29, 2022)