The Supreme Court of the United States is more conservative than it has been in decades, so the time is ripe to reexamine how state constitutions can provide broad protections of individual rights. California’s unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which prohibits the government from conditioning individual rights on benefits, presents one promising means for this goal. Like all U.S. jurisdictions, California’s criminal legal system is largely administered via plea bargains. Although courts characterize plea bargains as fair and necessary, these characterizations do not enjoy strong empirical support. This Note first explores common justifications for plea bargains through examining limited data, empirical studies, and case studies. Then, this Note assesses whether plea bargains violate California’s unconstitutional conditions doctrine. This Note concludes that plea bargaining practices likely violate the doctrine and urges state actors to implement reforms. Specifically, courts, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and legislators can take steps to ensure that plea bargaining is less coercive. These actions would help the criminal legal system to strike the proper balance between the pursuit of state interests and greater protection of individual rights.