> any decent judge should see this lacks probable cause

You're shoehorning complaints about the judiciary into a case which never made it to a judge.

She paid bail. Bail is set by a judge. Plus, felony charges generally require a hearing before the trial.

Judges, DAs and by extension any public arm including police should remember that doctrine coming from Roman law "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished" (John Adams, 1770) or likewise "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer" (William Blackstone, 1769) or "it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent" (SCOTUS, 1895).

Maybe we should remind everyone about this when they cry about cashless bail.

I think the main resistance to cashless bail is the poor implementation in many jurisdictions.

DAs more than judges, since DAs need successful convictions on crimes important to their constituency to get re-elected, and they need police cooperation to get successful convictions.

A judge may well throw this out on its merits, but the case has to progress far enough that a judge has the chance to consider it on its merits. A DA offering a plea deal "so you avoid risking jail time" is basically circumventing that, as the judge doesn't have the resources or authority to investigate every plea deal that comes their way.

You're supposed to have a hearing at which a judge determines if probably cause was met and then set bail. So a judge should have reviewed this.

> But judges are not impartial and instead side with the DA/police by default.

Anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY, who has been to traffic court knows the courts are the extension of the cops. Worse yet, in criminal court, judges tell the jury that "being a cop doesnt give any more or less truthfulness or power on their words".

The judges work with with cops and prosecution on a daily basis. They work against you extremely rarely.