NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — An accused person who could not reasonably afford $10,000 bail was denied a reduction or nonmonetary release Wednesday at the Harbor Justice Center, despite defense arguments that blood alcohol test results remained pending and less restrictive alternatives to detention were available.
Following extensive arguments between counsel, Judge Thomas Glazier declined to reduce bail or grant release on own recognizance, citing concerns about public safety and the accused’s compliance with previous court orders.
The accused was on probation following a guilty plea to driving under the influence on July 14, 2026. While on probation, the accused was charged with a second DUI.
During the traffic stop, police observed an open, half-empty beer bottle in the accused’s center console. The accused admitted to officers that he had consumed four beers that day.
Officers administered a breathalyzer test, but the accused was unable to provide an adequate breath sample, prompting officers to obtain a blood sample for alcohol testing.
Deputy Public Defender Elder opened her argument by citing In re Harris, which addressed the use of reliable evidence in pretrial detention decisions and the requirement that courts consider less restrictive alternatives before ordering detention.
Elder raised the decision because the accused’s blood alcohol test had not yet been processed, with results expected to take 10 days. She argued that without those results, the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to establish the second DUI allegation as grounds for continued detention.
She also told the court that the accused had community ties because his brother lived in the area. However, the accused had been unable to contact his brother while in custody because he did not know his phone number.
The accused works at a restaurant and earns approximately $2,000 per month. His income goes entirely toward living expenses, leaving him with no savings.
Bail was set at $10,000 in connection with the DUI and probation violation charges, an amount the accused could not reasonably afford. Elder requested a “significant” reduction in bail or release on own recognizance.
The deputy district attorney outlined the allegations and argued that the accused had reoffended while on probation for a previous DUI conviction. The prosecution maintained that the accused posed a threat to public safety and requested that bail remain unchanged.
Elder responded that, under In re Harris, the court could not presume the accused posed a threat to public safety solely because of previous convictions. She also argued that the second DUI allegation had not been established because the blood alcohol test results remained pending.
She told the court that the accused’s “liberty is in jeopardy” while he remained in custody.
Judge Glazier reviewed the accused’s previous conviction and probation status, stating that by allegedly violating probation, the accused had “failed to follow the rules of the court.”
The judge observed that only three months after pleading guilty to the first DUI, the accused was back in custody facing another DUI allegation and a charge of driving without a valid license.
Glazier said the accused had already “promised not to violate laws” but “shows no general desire to comply with the court’s order.”
He questioned whether the accused would comply with the law or appear for future court proceedings if released.
Deputy Public Defender Jessica Arbgast acknowledged the judge’s concerns but cited In re Kowalczyk, which addressed the requirement that courts consider an accused person’s financial circumstances when setting bail and the constitutional limitations on unaffordable bail.
Arbgast argued that bail must be set at an amount reasonably attainable given the accused’s financial circumstances and that courts could not impose an objectively unattainable amount without the required justification.
As the defense had previously explained, the accused could not reasonably afford bail because he had multiple cases with bail set at $10,000 and no savings.
Considering the status of the second DUI case and the accused’s financial circumstances, Arbgast renewed the request for release on own recognizance.
Arbgast also proposed connecting the accused with social workers who could refer him to appropriate programs rather than relying on monetary bail.
She argued that such an alternative would be appropriate because the accused was only 22 years old and had community ties through his brother, who lived in the area.
Glazier questioned the significance of those community ties, noting that the accused was not currently in contact with his brother.
The judge said he was “not convinced of the safety of the community,” adding that he was “not convinced, not satisfied.”
Glazier declined to reduce the $10,000 bail amount and scheduled the next pretrial hearing for Oct. 28.
Elder and Arbgast requested that the next hearing also include another bail review, explaining that they would attempt to contact the accused’s brother before that date.
Glazier granted the request for another bail review.
Despite defense arguments concerning the accused’s inability to afford bail, his community ties, the pending blood alcohol test results and the availability of alternatives to detention, Glazier maintained the existing $10,000 bail amount.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
