Under these criteria, and under 510.30 of the CPL, the court can come to only one logical conclusion, namely that the pre-arraignment procedure now existing in Bronx County violates a defendant’s right to the granting of reasonable bail; does not conform with the requirements of 510.30 of the CPL; and contradicts the mandate of the Court of Appeals and is therefore an unconstitutional deprivation. If the Court is uninformed in the bail fixing process, reasonable bail cannot be set. The Legislature, in passing section 510.30, set forth standards so that the Court can guide itself in being as objective as possible. The pre-arraignment procedure frustrates these guidelines by cutting off from the Court its main and most significant source of information upon which it must rely if it is to conform to the intent of the Legislature.
The People, without conceding that the defendant’s arrest rights were violated, state in their brief (page 13, referring to the advantages of pre-arraignment): ‘This public benefit so far outweighs any hypothetical minor inconvenience or prejudice to a defendant, that even were defendant prejudiced in any way continuance of the present arraignment procedure would still be justified. When the public need is balanced against the inconvenience to a private citizen, and the public need is deemed paramount, it takes precedence, and the perquisites of a private citizen must yield.
The fact is that society must exercise restraint consistent with the Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime and depriving them of their liberty, because if society permits the erosion of basic rights of those who are charged with criminal activity, in the name of public benefit, the groundwork is then laid for a system of government which would open the door to a similar erosion of the rights of those who are totally innocent.