糖心Vlog

ATLANTA, GA鈥� Today, the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlog of Georgia, and the Southern Center for Human Rights filed Coronell, et al. v. Georgia, a class action lawsuit brought by people denied an individual determination of bail and Women on the Rise, a grassroots organization led by formerly incarcerated women that advocates for ending cash bail and pretrial incarceration. The lawsuit seeks to strike down Senate Bill 63, a Georgia law passed in 2024, that has led to thousands of people with low or no income being kept in jail before having a trial, even when a judge believes the person should have been released, with no risk to the public.鈥疶he lawsuit challenges SB 63鈥檚 mandatory cash bond provisions under the due process clause of the Georgia state constitution. 鈥疶he plaintiffs ask the court to declare SB 63 unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction that prevents state actors from enforcing its mandatory cash bond provisions. 鈥淲omen on the Rise鈥檚 involvement in this lawsuit is important to us because鈥痮f the injustices we see that are happening to those the system says are presumed innocent until proven guilty.鈥疍enying bail can undermine this principle, as people may be held in custody despite not having been convicted of a crime,鈥� said Robyn Hasan-Simpson, executive director of Women on the Rise. 鈥淥ur hope is that this gives access to everyone to gain their freedom while addressing the charges that have been brought against them, for those to maintain employment, housing, and fulfilling the role they have as members in our community.鈥濃�� SB 63 makes cash bond mandatory for dozens of charges, most of them misdemeanors. When a person is arrested and accused of such an offense, SB 63 forces a judge to set a cash bond that the person must pay to get bailed out of jail. When setting bail, judges are no longer allowed to take into account critical facts and circumstances 鈥� such as a person鈥檚 strong family connections, local community ties, and employment record; the absence of past criminal convictions; and a history of following court requirements 鈥攖hat show that a person can be safely released under less-restrictive conditions while still assuring they will return to court and not endanger the public. This inevitably leads to people being incarcerated, often in dangerous jails, simply because of poverty. 鈥淯nder SB 63, people who cannot afford to pay a cash bond will be forced to languish in jail, often for weeks or months,鈥� said Julian Clark, staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淏y punishing those unable to pay for their freedom with incarceration SB 63 imposes significant societal costs 鈥� ones that are disproportionately incurred by Black and brown communities. No one鈥檚 freedom should depend on how much money they have.鈥� Plaintiff Sierrah Coronell has been incarcerated for 77 days because she cannot afford to pay her $600 cash bond. As directed by SB 63, the judge was not permitted to consider whether any release conditions other than cash bond would reasonably ensure her appearance in court and the safety of the public. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Coronell was the primary caregiver of her five children, ages 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15. As a result of her incarceration, Ms. Coronell is unable to care for her children, leaving her mother and her children鈥檚 father to be their sole caretakers in her absence. Ms. Coronell鈥檚 incarceration has also forced her to miss her oldest daughter's 15th birthday. 鈥淕eorgia is a particularly cruel state that locks up a higher percentage of its population than any independent democratic country in the world. This lawsuit would bring an end to holding the most vulnerable people at Fulton County Jail and in all jails across the state simply because they can鈥檛 afford to pay bail. These practices are wasteful, costly, cause overcrowding, and do not improve public safety. We are committed to ending these cruel and unconstitutional policies in Georgia,鈥� said Andrea Young, executive director, 糖心Vlogof Georgia. 鈥淚鈥檝e met many people in Georgia jails who cannot get out because they cannot buy their way out.鈥疨eople who don鈥檛 have loved ones who can pay a couple hundred dollars, or in some cases as little as 10 dollars, to post their鈥痓ail.鈥� People who the courts have deemed ready for release but remain in jail for no other reason than their low income.鈥� SB 63 isn鈥檛 making us safer.鈥� It鈥檚 keeping our jails full, separating people from their jobs, families, and homes, and all but guaranteeing that people leave worse than when they came in.鈥� It鈥檚 difficult to think of a more backwards policy,鈥� said鈥疞achlan Athanasiou, legal fellow in SCHR鈥檚 Impact Litigation Unit.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Trump administration today signed two new executive orders that would target sanctuary cities and direct law enforcement to pursue legal action against state or local officials accused of 鈥渙bstructing criminal or immigration law enforcement.鈥� The executive order targeting sanctuary cities directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security to prosecute state or local officials who refuse to assist with the Trump administration鈥檚 plan to deport immigrants who contribute to the economy and communities nationwide. It also penalizes states that provide in-state tuition to noncitizens. The order echoes previous guidance issued by the DOJ that suggested state and local officials would face federal prosecution for limiting the amount of assistance they provide to federal agencies carrying out immigration enforcement. The second executive order directs law enforcement to pursue legal action against state officials, seeks to prevent accountability for law enforcement misconduct, and encourages police brutality. In response to this news, Naureen Shah, director of government affairs for the ACLU鈥檚 Equality Division, had the following reaction: 鈥淭hese executive orders are just the latest escalation in the Trump administration鈥檚 shakedown of cities, states, and elected officials that refuse to offer up local resources for the administration鈥檚 mass deportation and detention agenda. States and cities have the right to decide how best to use local resources, and they overwhelmingly agree that taxpayer dollars are better spent investing in programs that improve public safety and support our communities 鈥� not policies that tear them apart by deporting our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. Similarly, President Trump does not control the more 17,000 local law enforcement agencies across this country. That authority remains, appropriately, with the people in cities and towns nationwide, who must continue pushing for reforms that protect rights and improve public safety.鈥� 鈥淭hese orders have no legal basis and are another example of President Trump鈥檚 relentless campaign to attack the integrity of our legal system and separation of powers by targeting judges, lawyers, and other officials who refuse to comply with his extreme agenda.鈥�

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawai驶i held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai鈥榠 Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Hawai鈥榠 filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawai驶i should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court鈥檚 supervisory authority over lower courts.

LINCOLN, Neb. 鈥� Yesterday, the Nebraska Legislature鈥檚 Judiciary Committee heard testimony on LB 222, a bill that would reduce non-safety traffic stops in Nebraska. The legislation would reclassify certain non-moving equipment violations, such as expired registration tags or improper use of horn, as secondary violations, meaning police could only cite drivers for these infractions if they had already been pulled over for a more serious offense, like speeding or drunk driving. Introduced by State Sen. Terrell McKinney, LB 222 aims to improve road safety and reduce unnecessary law enforcement encounters by having police shift attention away from non-moving violations to prioritize dangerous driving behaviors that contribute to serious traffic crashes. Nebraska鈥檚 traffic code currently lists over 300 traffic violations, but more than half of all traffic fatalities in the state involve just two offenses: speeding or driving under the influence. The Center for Policing Equity, a nonprofit research center, submitted written comments in support of the bill, citing benefits that come with shifting enforcement priorities from non-safety traffic stops. 鈥淟B 222 represents an educated step towards focusing police time and resources where they are most effective,鈥� said Chris Burbank, former Police Chief of Salt Lake City and consultant with CPE. 鈥淥f the more than 100,000 traffic stops reported in Nebraska in 2023, just 1.1% led to an arrest: clear evidence that pretext stops are not an essential crime-fighting tool. The economic and social cost of traffic enforcement for non-safety infractions outweighs any benefit. We can and must do better. The time has come for us to ask of policing, 鈥榮hould we?鈥� as opposed to 鈥榗an we?鈥欌�� At the hearing, the 糖心Vlogof Nebraska shared new polling results showing that Nebraskans broadly support legislation that reduces unnecessary police interactions through non-safety traffic stops. Among the highlights, 70 percent of surveyed voters said they would strongly or somewhat support a law like LB 222 to change certain minor offenses, like an expired registration or cracked windshield, to secondary violations. The civil rights organization said the bill could help reduce racial disparities in law enforcement. Since Nebraska began collecting traffic stop data in 2001, Black, Latine, and Native American drivers have consistently been two to three times more likely to be pulled over or searched by law enforcement than white drivers. 鈥淔or drivers of color, traffic stops have been a primary entry point to harmful and sometimes deadly interactions with police,鈥� said Jason Witmer, policy fellow for the 糖心Vlogof Nebraska. 鈥淎nd Nebraskans of color have long been more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested by police. There is an undeniable psychological impact that comes with that, and not just for folks who are pulled over. Something has to change. LB 222 is an important step in the right direction.鈥� In submitted testimony with a neutral position, national road safety advocates applauded the potential benefits of the legislation. 鈥淟imiting non-safety traffic stops is a commonsense way to make the roads safer for everyone,鈥� said Leah Shahum, founder and executive director of Vision Zero Network. 鈥淲hen law enforcement resources are used to pull drivers over for minor equipment violations, such as tinted windows, officers miss opportunities to address actual dangerous behaviors causing the most serious crashes, such as speeding, reckless driving and impairment. The most effective approaches to improving roadway safety are not punitive enforcement for non-safety infractions. Instead, road safety is best advanced by using proactive strategies such as redesigning roads to be safer, managing speeds for safety, improving vehicle safety standards, using technologies to encourage safe behavior and ensuring enforcement is used to address actual road safety threats. By shifting enforcement priorities from non-safety traffic stops, Nebraska can join a growing number of states and cities prioritizing evidence-informed strategies to reduce traffic deaths.鈥� The bill remains with the Judiciary Committee. This year鈥檚 legislative session is scheduled to conclude in June.