![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/SF-Hall-of-Justice-2021-3-e1715713621181-765x510.jpg\")
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
SAN FRANCISCO \u2014 During a July 13, 2026, bail review hearing in Department 9 at the San Francisco Hall of Justice, Judge Dawn R. Payne declined to revisit a prior custody ruling, leaving the accused detained despite defense arguments that the alleged electronic monitoring violation was merely technical and that less restrictive alternatives had not been considered.<\/p>\n
Deputy Public Defender Meenha Lee argued that the accused was being wrongfully detained after the original judge, Brendan P. Conroy, failed to consider less restrictive measures before ordering custody.<\/p>\n
The accused was originally released on own recognizance with electronic monitoring but was later taken into custody on a bench warrant and a sheriff\u2019s affidavit warrant. The sheriff\u2019s affidavit warrant was requested because of irregularities with the previously issued ankle monitor.<\/p>\n
Lee cited Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution, arguing that the accused did not meet the conditions for continued detention and instead should be considered for less restrictive measures.<\/p>\n
Lee explained that the electronic monitoring violation was only a \u201ctechnical violation.\u201d She argued that the accused had engaged in no new dangerous conduct, which is why \u201cless restrictive alternatives\u201d should have been considered. Lee listed a curfew, affordable bail and home detention as possible alternatives to custody.<\/p>\n
Deputy District Attorney Blake Catherine objected to the accused\u2019s release, citing \u201cpublic safety.\u201d Catherine noted that the accused had previously failed to appear in court and had allegedly tampered with his ankle monitor.<\/p>\n
Lee argued that during the prior hearing before Judge Conroy, \u201canalysis under Kowalczyk did not occur\u201d because \u201cless restrictive alternatives were not tried,\u201d making the previous court decision \u201can error.\u201d Lee added that the accused was \u201cunlawfully held under Kowalczyk.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Payne explained that she could not review another judge\u2019s ruling and said the bail motion \u201cwill be addressed\u201d at the preliminary hearing.<\/p>\n
The preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 22. The accused will remain in custody until then.<\/p>\n
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:<\/p>\n
Facebook: https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/DavisVanguard<\/a><\/p>\n LinkedIn: https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc\/<\/a><\/p>\n Instagram: https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/davisvanguard\/<\/a><\/p>\n X: https:\/\/x.com\/davisvanguard<\/a><\/p>\n Bluesky: https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social<\/a><\/p>\n Subscribe <\/a>to the Vanguard News letters.\u00a0 To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org\/donate<\/a> or give directly through ActBlue<\/a>.\u00a0 Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.<\/p>\n Categories: Breaking News<\/a> Court Watch<\/a> Northern California Court Watch<\/a> San Francisco Court Watch<\/a> Vanguard Court Watch<\/a> Tags: bail review<\/a> Court Watch<\/a> Electronic Monitoring<\/a> Kowalczyk<\/a> Pretrial Detention<\/a> San Francisco Superior Court<\/a>