AccreditedBail - Leading the Way

Reining-in Pretrial Release Programs at the Federal Level

2011-05-17T09:14:00.000-04:00

In the 112th Congress, the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, H.R. 1885 has been filed by Representative Ted Poe of Texas, to include seven co-sponsors.

H.R. 1885 will require state and local pretrial services agencies receiving federal funding to report to the Department of Justice on defendants released through such agencies. This measure will provide greater transparency for programs funded by taxpayer dollars in an effort to gage their effectiveness in the release and supervision of arrested individuals.

Bail agents, their insurance companies and the American Bail Coalition have been pushing for such a bill at the federal level. Private surety bail has been proven by national, state and local studies to be the most effective and efficient means of pretrial release. Private bail uses no taxpayer dollars.

A special report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that reviewed the release of felony defendants in state courts from 1990-2004 found the following:

“Compared to release on recognizance, defendants on financial release were more likely to make all scheduled court appearances. Defendants released on an unsecured bond or as part of an emergency release were most likely to have a bench warrant issued because they failed to appear in court.”

The private surety bail industry will continue to advocate for less use of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs that historically have higher failure to appear and fugitive rates.

Pretrial Release Legislation: The Truth, the Falsehoods, the Games

2011-05-10T15:33:00.000-04:00

Attempts to rein in and provide consistency to Florida’s government-funded pretrial release programs through a House and Senate bill never made it to either floor for a vote. The 2011 legislative session went into overtime and unraveled in its final hours.

However, the debate along the way in various committee stops provided much to write about. Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff and Representative Chris Dorworth championed the Senate and House bills respectively and stayed true to their belief that government-funded pretrial release programs have overgrown their original intent.

The bills attempted to limit government-funded release to the indigent and those 300 percent below the federal poverty level to address the “working poor.” It also stated that defendants could not be eligible for release if they had a previous failure to appear, which increases tremendous costs to the overall criminal justice system. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the probability of failing to appear in court was higher among defendants who had a prior failure to appear. The bills stipulated that a defendant who is not otherwise eligible for government-funded release would be eligible if not released within 48 hours, thus allowing even more defendants into the government-funded pretrial release program. Finally, they exempted counties with populations under 350,000 residents.

But even those counties below this threshold came out in aggressive opposition to the bills even though their programs would not be affected.

Senator Bogdanoff was adamant that the taxpayers should not subsidize the release of defendants who can afford their own release. She said in her comments to the Senate Committee on Judiciary that:

"The reason I am putting this bill forward is that I do not believe it is appropriate for government to be picking up the tab for people who can afford bond. There is absolutely no information that indicates that it’s going to cost the county government money. Government likes to expand government, that’s just the way it is, the nature of the beast. And I would say it’s our obligation to make sure that government doesn’t step into the roles where they don’t belong. If we have bonding agents where people can afford to bond, and bond out, the taxpayers should not be picking up that tab.”

Representative Dorworth was even more outspoken in his comments to the House Criminal Justice and Judiciary Committees. He started by pointing out that opponents of the bills will argue that jail populations will increase if the bills are passed, however OPPAGA, the Legislature’s oversight arm for pretrial release programs, found that there is no correlation between a county’s jail occupancy rate and whether or not they have a pretrial release program.

The Florida Association of Counties (FAC) stated that 72 percent of defendants in Florida’s jails are already determined to be indigent, which means that only 28 percent of defendants can afford their own release. Yet FAC and others were against exempting those who can afford their own release from eligibility into the government-funded program.

Sarah Carroll, Legislative Advocate for FAC, kept throwing out “conservative estimates” stating that:

“If all of the people who were not indigent were excluded under this bill, there would be about a $52 million impact to counties. If you assume that 20 percent of the people who are not eligible based on indigency criteria alone, it’s still going to be a $10 million impact to the 17 counties reporting. If you go to one-third of the people who would be ineligible, it’s going to be about a $17 million impact.”

Of course there was no evidence provided to support these figures.

Representative Dorworth said in reference to Ms. Carroll’s remarks and numbers:

“So the poor, the people who rightly benefit from the assistance of government are rightly going to receive it. But we’re saying do we want to use taxpayer dollars to take people and get them out of jail when they can rightly post a bond. We’re talking about people accused of a crime here. I just find the whole conversation to be very interesting.”

There was much discussion regarding the “profit-making entity” driving the legislation. Opponents of the bill kept hyping that the bills would shift money directly away from defendants and taxpayers to bail bondsmen by forcing defendants who would otherwise be eligible for pretrial release to post bail. This would increase jail populations and cause millions of more taxpayer dollars to be spent on building jail beds.

Yet the bills would clearly take care of the indigent and working poor while allowing those who could afford to pay for their own release to do so. The proposed bottlenecking was never explained.

Representative Elaine Schwartz asked a representative from the Association of Pretrial Professionals of Florida how counties are able to do this [run pretrial programs] without any state money or any costs to the taxpayers and how staff salaries are paid for those who run the programs?

The Association of Pretrial Professionals of Florida representative had to publicly admit that government-funded pretrial release programs are mostly run by the counties and operated by county employees. And, funded by the taxpayers.

Opponents of the bills even went so far as to say the commercial bail bond industry is making the decision about who should not be released or who should be released. Really? We thought that was the judge’s job to decide. However, they quickly pointed out that their programs don’t decide such:

“Florida’s pretrial programs do not choose who they are going to supervise. Defendants released to Florida’s pretrial release programs are released to the program at the discretion of the court for a valid reason.”

Well folks, it works the same way for bond.

Then opponents tried to claim that more defendants failed to appear on surety bond than under their pretrial release supervision. They conveniently threw out statistics of such success with no statistical outcomes to prove them. On the other hand, the Bureau of Justice Statistics with the Department of Justice has stated that compared to release on recognizance, defendants on financial release were more likely to make all scheduled court appearances. Defendants released on an unsecured bond or as part of an emergency release were most likely to have a bench warrant issued because they failed to appear in court.

Again, Representative Dorworth summed it up nicely:

“I think first and foremost, there is no motive like a profit motive and when a member in the bail bond industry posts a bond for somebody, they have an obligation to make sure that person shows up in court or they lose money. And so they have that responsibility if someone does not show up for their court date, they’re obligated to go and bring them in. Under pretrial release if they don’t show up for a court date, we just give the information to the cops and that becomes the responsibility of the government. I would suggest to you that with a bail bondsman if they post the bond, they are responsible for making sure that person shows up for every court date and for a lot of the data that you see on pretrial release, if you show up for ten court dates and you miss the 11th one, they rule you as being 91 percent in attendance. As a bail bondsman, you are 100 percent out of compliance if you miss one court date.”

Then much of the discussion shifted to the needs of the defendants who are arrested for a criminal offense and taken to jail.

One of the sheriffs in vocal opposition to the bills stated multiple times that pretrial programs provide an opportunity for those charged with a non-violent offense and pose no threat to public safety, an opportunity to be released timely:

“They can return to their jobs and provide for their families and avoid loss of job, avoid loss of having their vehicle repossessed because they couldn’t make payments because they were in jail and they lost their job. Avoid losing their homes because they didn’t have an opportunity to pay because they were sitting in jail. We all know what happens when someone sits in jail for two, three, four, five six days and you’re working, you lose your job. This provides an opportunity so they can go back to work and keep their job and provide for their family . . . keep their apartment, keep their home, keep their car.”

He went on to say to the Legislature:

“But I will tell you and I will plead with you that pretrial release is not a service or function that should be outsourced to the bail bond industry. They have their own business, their own industry; don’t be interfering with our pretrial release programs. Stand up people, do what’s right.”

Well, I don’t know what your definition of a non-violent or a low-risk offender is, or what the victim(s) of a defendant’s crime would think, but I believe that a defendant charged with battery, battery domestic violence, domestic violence by strangulation, aggravated battery on a pregnant person, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, aggravated assault with a firearm or deadly weapon, battery on a firefighter or law enforcement officer, or burglary of an occupied dwelling, has not committed a non-violent offense but a violent offense and they shouldn’t be released from jail on my tax dollars with no financial skin in the game.

But you also have many more defendants released on your tax dollars for grand theft, prostitution, carrying concealed weapons/firearm, possession of a firearm in commission of a felony, possession, distribution, trafficking of controlled substances; cocaine; heroin; oxycodone; methadone; oxycontin; cannabis, DUI (with minor in vehicle, property damage or personal injury), driving with no valid driver’s license, driving with license habitually revoked, trafficking/dealing in stolen property, burglary of unoccupied dwelling, forgery, theft, lewdness and indecent exposure . . . and many more crimes.

All of these offenses can be documented for release.

Representative Dorworth summed up the sentiments of many citizens when he stated:

"I think sometimes we are forgetting that we are talking about people that have been arrested and accused of a crime, and I have found that many people in this Legislature have found it completely offensive to ask those people to do anything, at any inconvenience whatsoever."

But there’s more.

Echoing this sentiment of bowing to the needs of defendants charged with a crime rather than considering how the victims of the crime would feel, several government-funded pretrial release advocates said the following:

A representative of county government said:

“There is no reason to put people in jail who don’t belong there, there is no reason to keep people in jail who do not belong there. At home we call this bill the ‘bail bondsmen relief act,’ because that is what it seems to be and I would think the policy of this state is not what the bill says, which is support the private sector bond industry. But to ensure that those people who don’t deserve to sit in jail are not sitting in jail and the taxpayer’s don’t have to pay for that.”

Then scare tactics when a director of a government-funded pretrial release program told the Legislature:

“You’re going to hear the devastating impact this bill will have on our Florida counties. If this bill passes, what will happen to victims of domestic violence? Who will be there for them, who will give them peace of mind in knowing there is someone out there to hold these defendants accountable and make sure they do not harass, stalk or batter the victims again? What about the people who need substance abuse treatment but won’t get the help without being forced to? Who will be there for their families? What about the defendants who so desperately need mental health treatment who will give them the resources they need so that they cannot get arrested again? And who is going to be there for the victims of sex crimes? Who is going to make sure these people are not hanging around our schools, daycares, parks and our kids? Who is going to be there for our children? We have an obligation to protect the citizens of the state of Florida and this is something pretrial agencies take very seriously. If this bill passes in any form, you will be jeopardizing the safety of everyone in this room and everyone in the state of Florida.”

Wow! How can government-funded pretrial release programs claim they are protecting the public against all of these offenses by seeing someone for 15 minutes weekly or monthly, if ordered, or by having someone call into an automated telephone system to check-in? More in-depth supervision methods perhaps, such as home confinement or GPS monitoring; this is not the standard supervision given to most defendants released to pretrial release programs. And the private sector, including bail agents, provides GPS monitoring, drug/alcohol testing, mental health treatment referrals, etc. These services don’t have to be overseen by government. Law enforcement ensures sex offenders are not, “hanging around our schools, daycares, parks and our kids,” not government-funded pretrial release programs.

Another of my favorite lines told to the Florida Legislature was this:

“To ignore those pleas [of government-funded pretrial release programs] is to lead us to enrich the bail bondsmen on the backs of taxpayers of Florida.”

After all the rhetoric and condemnation toward the private surety bail industry, Representative Dorworth provided this explanation:

“The proponents of this bill are a for-profit industry. Apparently to some people here, the phrase ‘for-profit’ has become an insult, and I do not believe that. I think for-profit is what drove America to be great. And I think the fact that people in private sector are able to do a job, should receive some benevolence from the Florida Legislature. The people who work as bail bondsmen are small business people. These are not international conglomerates. These are people who work hard to put bread on the table and take care of their families like you and me. Pretrial release opponents all stand up because they are protecting the bottom line, the revenue that comes out of the programs they want here. And they stand up . . . I actually heard this was just said here . . . they said a profit-making industry is terrible; there’s an industry that wants to make a profit.”

And other Legislators took opponents of government-funded pretrial release programs to task after their lobbying efforts.

Representative Matt Gaetz said he was compelled to debate after hearing several presentations by Okaloosa County who wouldn’t even be affected by the bills. He said the following:

“My reaction to the content of that testimony is one of pure embarrassment, because the content of what we’ve adopted completely exempts Okaloosa County as a county under 350,000. There’s not a county within 50 miles of Okaloosa County that will be affected by Representative Dorworth’s bill. And I certainly hope that the taxpayers that I represent didn’t send anyone here and aren’t paying for anyone’s reimbursement to be here to give this testimony that was totally not germane to the matter before us. If there were lobbyists that told folks to be here they ought to be fired. This is an example of trying to snatch victory, or snatch defeat from the claws of victory. It’s utter, utter incompetence. To the content of the bill, I have been educated that pretrial release programs in certain areas can become a cesspool for patronage; they can become a place where there can be cozy relationships between counties, law enforcement and vendors that make a lot of money on these pretrial release programs. To me you define the conservative philosophy; I know everyone defines their philosophy differently, but to me I define my conservative philosophy that if you can pick up a phone book and find three people that are willing to do the job in the private sector, you’ve got to wonder why government is in that space. It’s always good for people to have skin in the game for people that do work for the state of Florida; that’s been our approach to Medicaid reform, it’s been our approach to education reform, and here, if you have a private sector company that has a profit motive to get people in court, that seems to be pretty good public policy.”

Representative Eric Eisnaugle stated he wasn’t planning on saying anything on the bill, but said there was something bothering him enough that he wanted to do so. He said the following:

“Initially the argument when people would come talk to me about this bill was that look, simply being indigent is not enough, people are not going to be able to bond out still even with that and as a result, the jail populations would sky high was the argument. Well now, Representative you’ve expanded that, you’ve said 300 percent of the federal poverty level, but yet the same arguments are still being made. My genuine concern is to me there’s a problem with credibility. We’re starting to get into the point where there is a problem with credibility. And I’m starting to wonder if people just want a government program for everybody regardless of whether or not they are rich enough to pay for bond. I for one don’t think there should be a government program for those who are able to bond out, and as a result of the process I just laid out, I’m going to be voting for the bill today.”

Perhaps government-funded pretrial release programs should listen to the comments made by Representative Ray Pilon. He said:

“I too come from an area, in fact when I was a County Commissioner helped establish our pretrial release intervention; I do want to have more consistency throughout the state as the Representative has talked about and I do want it to work properly. I think we are moving in the right direction as one of the members just talked about. And then I start doing a little inquiry into facts and figures. And what I find out is that we have a lot of pretrial programs going around the state, certainly not in all 67 counties, certainly less than half, about a third now . . . and the problem I have with the program is that since I first envisioned it in my county, it has morphed into something more than I envisioned it, and it lacks consistency throughout the circuits. It is my desire, whether or not this goes up or down here or on the floor, to one if we do away with them, one I come back next year and create a program legislatively that has consistent pretrial . . . and I like to use the word intervention, because of drug courts and mental health courts. But I just got figures from my own county and only 44 percent of the folks in our local pretrial were indigent; the rest were not. I’m a huge supporter of what I thought were pretrial systems but I think we need more consistency.”

As aptly stated by Representative Dorworth:

“A fact of life is that government can always out-do private business. If tomorrow your county decided to start a bank and they wanted to use tax dollars to support it, they could very easily offer higher interest rates and probably give cheaper loans. And they can always do that because they have the benefit of government money. So then what happens, is everyone starts putting their money and doing their loans and we’re doing all these transactions, and suddenly we’re making money on it. And then we say, ‘Wow this is great; we’re so much better.’ And the banks come to you and say, ‘This is not good; this is causing us to lose our business.’ And you say, ‘Well, it’s important for us because it’s a big part of our revenue.’”

The private surety bail industry applauds Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff and Representative Chris Dorworth for their continued support amidst the mistruths and twisted facts presented.

The taxpayers too deserve to have their tax dollars used more wisely.

Support Bills That Ease Pretrial Release Burden

2011-04-27T16:56:00.000-04:00

Note: published in the Orlando Sentinel, April 27, 2011

The Orlando Sentinel editorial "Punishing taxpayers" on Saturday was not only condescending to small business owners, but misleading.

House Bill 1379 and Senate Bill 372 simply state that criminals who can afford their own release should pay and not put the burden on taxpayers. The Florida Association of Counties, which derives its money from membership fees using tax dollars, has estimated the impact to counties, if the bills pass, to be between $10 million and $55 million.

FAC and advocates of government-funded release want to hoodwink citizens into thinking these are bad bills because they don't want to downsize the huge bureaucracies they have created. And they have no impact on jail populations.

The Orlando Sentinel should commend, not deride, lawmakers who are trying to remedy this situation. The bills will not only save limited tax dollars but protect public safety as well. The private surety bail industry has a long partnership in the criminal justice system and has proved to be the most effective form of release.

Why? Because defendants who have a financial stake in the game, along with family and friends, tend to think twice about losing their money or collateral. And, they know bail agents will supervise them and re-arrest them if necessary for failing to appear in court or committing a new crime. All on the bail agent's own dime.

Florida legislators should reject the gross inaccuracies being told by advocates of pretrial release programs and protect the taxpayers from further losses.

Melanie Ledgerwood
Orlando
Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-florida-voters-rights-letters-020110426,0,4592157,full.story

Public to Pay for Bail

2011-04-19T12:20:00.000-04:00

The Colorado Springs Gazette published an editorial on April 18, 2011 entitled, "Politicians want public to pay for bail." While the editorial focused on bills being sponsored in the Colorado Legislature, the message is applicable to any state wanting to pass bail bond legislation that would put the the burden on taxpayers to fund the release of criminals from jail.

We applaud Mr. Laugesen for his editorial in showing the shortfalls of a government-funded release system vs. the private surety bail industry.

Below is the article and the link to the Gazette.com so you can cast your vote on this measure:

It's among the worst ideas of the year
April 18, 2011 7:28 PM
Wayne Laugesen
For the editorial board

We do not need another government takeover of another private industry.

In the midst of recession and general public uncertainty, SB186 would put our local courthouses in the bail-bonding business. It could easily put taxpaying bond agents, who employ thousands of taxpayers throughout Colorado, right out of business. Even worse, suspects who are free on bond would also be free from a bonding agent with a financial incentive to bring them to justice. (Read the bill, read the fiscal note)

SB186 may be the worst bill to emerge from the 2011 General Assembly, and The Gazette hopes it won’t survive the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

“It is a government solution to a system that’s not broken,” said Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, who serves on the appropriations committee and plans to oppose the bill. “I’m concerned about conflicts of interest this would create. Judges and prosecutors should not also run the bail system.”

The bill would allow a judicial district to post the bond for a suspect, with the defendant paying interest to the courts instead of a bonding agent. At a bond rate of 15 percent, a suspect with a $10,000 bond would pay the court $1,500 in return for freedom. Half the money would pay for pretrial services, such as drug tests and monitoring services, and half could be returned to the suspect upon completion of the case. If convicted, the remaining money would pay fines, fees, costs, surcharges and restitution.

The Gazette spoke with a variety of the bill’s supporters, who each believe it would create an additional option for suspects to get out of jail. We think they are mistaken. The Gazette believes SB186 would quickly establish a state monopoly, leaving suspects at the mercy of a system that sets bail, posts bail and profits from bail.

“This puts us out of business,” said Bobby Brown, an El Paso County resident who may be the country’s best-known bail bondsman.

The Gazette spoke with Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, who sponsors a House version of the Bill. We spoke with El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, who supports SB186. We also spoke with Christie Donner, of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, who supports it. All are trusted sources respected by The Gazette. None could assure us the proposed system would reduce jail populations. None convinced us it would not destroy a private system that serves Colorado effectively. None convinced us the new system would work better than what we have. They just kinda-sorta think it’s a good idea.

Under the current system, suspects go through the yellow pages and find an array of lenders eager to post bond for a fee. Bonding agents routinely make creative deals that result in lower rates, because most suspects cannot come up with 10 percent or 15 percent of a bond. They allow suspects to use collateral in lieu of cash. They assume the risk, and have every incentive to make sure suspects show up in court on time. They travel coast-to-coast to rein in suspects who skip court dates, protecting their reputations and investments.

If SB186 puts private agents out of business, the burden of bailed-out suspects becomes the public’s. We will be left with 9-to-5 public employees to ensure that suspects appear in court. These employees will have nothing to lose when suspects skip court, because they will have nothing invested.

We will likely have more suspects who cannot make bail in the first place. By state law, the courts will be able to charge defendants up to 15 percent of a bond and it’s unlikely our judicial employees will jump through hoops — as agents in the hyper-competitive private market do — to free defendants from jail. Public employees will make no more, no less if a suspect sits behind bars or goes free. Private agents, by contrast, profit from the release of suspects. That means they work hard to make it happen.

Colorado cannot afford a risky foray into government bail-bonding, especially
one that’s likely to kill a private industry that protects our interests and feeds thousands of taxpaying Colorado families. The system is not broken. Do not take chances with a flaky bill that attempts to fix it, with the potential of dire consequences.

The article can be found at http://www.gazette.com/opinion/bail-116477-put-free.html

Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/bail-116477-put-free.html#ixzz1JzC6By8Q

Florida Criminal Justice Reform Measures

2011-04-12T16:47:00.000-04:00

Today the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee passed out a sweeping criminal justice reform bill on a voice vote with the strong leadership of Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff.

Included in the bill is a provision that the private surety bail industry has worked hard for during the 2011 Florida Legislative session . . . a measure to restrict the eligibility for defendants released into government-funded pretrial services programs.

The reform bill is restricted to only counties with populations larger than 350,000 and would give defendants 48 hours to find an bail agent or post a cash bond. The reform bill also stipulates that defendants are only eligible for government-funded release if their income is below 300 percent of the poverty level.

This measure will slow the encroachment of government-funded pretrial release and re-focus efforts on the truly indigent, nonviolent offender. The measure will also improve public safety by ensuring the defendant is financially accountable for appearance in court and refraining from further criminal activity.

The reform bill has now passed through a substantive committee in each chamber and is now eligible for floor action in each.

Public policy affects public safety!

Let's Get the Story Right on Florida's Pretrial Relase Programs

2011-03-28T14:01:00.001-04:00

In the March 26, 2011 edition of the Orlando Sentinel, the headline read, “State leaders may steer more inmates to local jails.” The article focused on two bills in the Florida Legislature that would limit eligibility for government-funded release from jail. Also stated in the article was that the, “fight over the county programs centers on certain inmates considered minimal risks — people arrested on first-time drunken driving or minor theft charges and other nonviolent crimes.”

While some defendants released have committed first-time, non-violent offenses, this is not always the case as opponents of limiting such release would have the public believe.

For example, in Orange County, the Board of County Commissioners funds a taxpayer-financed pretrial services program to the tune of approximately $1.6 million. The Sentinel article correctly stated that Orange County’s program has been scrutinized by the bail bond industry.

We would like to tell you why.

The bail industry knows that dangerous and potentially dangerous defendants are being released into the Orange County pretrial services unit every day. Below are examples of offenses defendants have committed in Orange County and who have been released from jail with your tax dollars.

We don’t believe the victims of these crimes would deem them to be “minimal” or would like the fact that their hard earned tax dollars let the alleged perpetrator back on the street free of charge with no accountability for showing up in court:

Aggravated battery with a deadly weapon
Aggravated battery
Aggravated battery on a pregnant person
Aggravated battery w/great bodily harm
Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
False imprisonment
Battery
Battery domestic violence
Battery domestic violence by strangulation
Violation of domestic violence injunction
Tampering with witness to hinder communication to law enforcement
Battery dating violence
Battery by strangulation/dating violence
Battery on law enforcement officer
Intentional threat to do violence
Carrying concealed firearm
Weapons – carrying simulated firearm
Possess concealed weapon/firearm by convicted felon
Burglary of occupied dwelling/conveyance
Burglary to unoccupied structure/conveyance
Possession of burglary tools with intent to use
Robbery/subsequent force with deadly weapon
Grand theft 3rd degree motor vehicle
Grand theft 3rd degree
Grand theft 2nd degree
Racketeering
Dealing in stolen property
Driving under the influence >.15 and >.20 balance; with property damage/personal injury; with minor in vehicle
Driving with license revoked as habitual offender
Possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, oxycodone, carisoprodal, ecstasy
Sale/delivery of cocaine
Possession of controlled substances
Possession of a controlled substance with a weapon
Trafficking in oxycodone >4, <14 grams
Indecent exposure
Retail theft >$300 subsequent offense
Trespass in structure or conveyance
Aggravated fleeing/eluding law enforcement
Child neglect/abuse

Do you believe this lengthy list of crimes pose minimal risks to the public? Well opponents of limiting free taxpayer release from jail do.

But let’s look a little further at just a few of the defendants who committed these offenses and their criminal history. Just because one offense may be considered to be non-violent, you must take the offense in context with someone’s criminal history when deciding the appropriate release mechanism. Obviously this was not done with the below defendants.

Arthur Leakes
Arrested for burglary to an unoccupied structure; possession of burglary tools with intent to use; trespass in occupied structure; petit theft and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

12/1990: controlled substance offense
05/1991: theft; possession of drug paraphernalia
09/1991: controlled substance offense (2 counts)
09/1992: possession of drug paraphernalia
10/1992: controlled substance offense; possession of drug paraphernalia
09/1993: theft
01/1995: controlled substance offense; violation of probation for a controlled substance offense
11/1995: escape
12/1995: burglary of a structure; petit theft; resisting law enforcement without violence
03/1996: controlled substance offense; obtaining property by worthless check (2 counts)
06/1996: obtaining property by worthless check (2 counts)
08/1997: delivery of counterfeit controlled substance; possession of drug paraphernalia
02/1998: sale of counterfeit substance
09/2002: possession of controlled substance and drug paraphernalia
09/2003: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
04/2005: theft; cheating; scheme to defraud
10/2007: possession of a controlled substance
8 traffic offenses with fines

Domingo Rivera
Arrested for burglary to an unoccupied structure or conveyance; trespass in unoccupied structure; petit theft and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

03/2001: illegal purchase/sale/offer for alcohol
05/2001: battery
08/2001: aggravated battery with great bodily harm; aggravated assault with deadly weapon; theft
07/2002: petit theft
09/2003: battery (2 counts)
08/2004: burglary; resisting law enforcement without violence; criminal mischief
06/2006: trespass in structure or conveyance
02/2008: carrying a concealed weapon
08/2008: burglary; petit theft; criminal mischief
03/2009: possession of cannabis <20 grams
07/2009: burglary of a conveyance; criminal mischief; petit theft
10/2010: trespass on property or conveyance

Jeffrey E. Fork
Arrested for possession of oxycontin and xanax; possession of drug paraphernalia (2 counts) and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

01/1993: driving with no valid driver’s license
01/1996: possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia
12/1996: disorderly intoxication and disorderly conduct
03/1999: driving under the influence
06/1999: possession of a controlled substance
16 traffic offenses

Lawrence Corns
Arrested for possession of cannabis <20 grams and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

09/1995: burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery; aggravated battery with a deadly weapon; resisting law enforcement with violence
08/2001: possession of drug paraphernalia
06/2004: disorderly conduct
04/2006: driving under the influence
07/2006: reckless driving
08/2007: battery
09/2008: battery/one prior battery
04/2010: battery/prior battery

Michael A. Graham
Arrested for driving under the influence and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

11/2002: lewd and lascivious act in presence of child (4 counts)
09/2003: exposure of sexual organs; lewd and lascivious exhibition by person >17 years; sell/manufacture/deliver controlled substance; possession of controlled substance; possession of drug paraphernalia
11/2010: robbery with a firearm; carjacking; aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; resisting law enforcement officer without violence

Jerry Wayne Casey
Arrested for indecent exposure and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

09/1987: driving under the influence
05/1996: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; petit theft
07/1998: theft
03/1999: theft
11/2000: resisting law enforcement without violence
05/2003: burglary of conveyance
11/2003: burglary of a dwelling; criminal mischief
12/2003: trespass
01/2005: dealing/trafficking in stolen property; petit theft
09/2007: trespass after warning
06/2008: criminal mischief/damage property
05/2009: trespass; disorderly intoxication
10/2010: illegal purchase/sale/offer for alcohol

Ronald E. Giddens
Arrested for trespass on property after warning and released on the taxpayers’ dime. Criminal history includes:

10/1989: theft; possession of alcohol by person <21 years; resisting law enforcement without violence
07/1994: battery
08/1994: trespass
05/1996: illegal purchase/sale/offer for alcohol
11/2003: aggravated battery/great bodily harm
01/2005: resisting law enforcement without violence
07/2005: disorderly intoxication; resisting law enforcement without violence
08/2005: disorderly intoxication
04/2009: disorderly intoxication

Thomas P. Costa
Arrested for the following offenses and released on the taxpayer’s dime:

R.I.C.O.
Grand theft 2nd degree $20,000 or more (2 counts)
Theft (22 counts)
False/fraudulent insurance claims (4 counts)
Obtain property by fraud >$300 (13 counts)
Acting as public insurance adjuster without a license (2 counts)

Orange County and the other 27 counties in Florida that have government-funded pretrial release programs continue to claim that jail populations will rise without a program despite an analysis by the Legislature’s oversight arm that proves otherwise. In fact, the analysis of counties with and counties without a pretrial release program irrefutably showed that “there appears to be no correlation between counties’ occupancy rate and whether or not they have a program.”

Yet as quoted in the article, the Orange County jail insists that any attempt to limit the type of defendants released into their program, “could mean an average of 274 more inmates staying in its jail each day.” Where is the proof to show this? Under the bills, defendants who can afford bail will pay bail and will be released. Those who are determined to be indigent will continue to be released under a pretrial release program. Where is the bottle necking?

An official with Orange County was quoted as saying, “extra costs are extra costs.” What about the cost to taxpayers to release defendants who are able to post their own bail? What about the extra cost to the taxpayers’ for law enforcement to find a defendant who has failed to appear? What about the lost time law enforcement spends trying to find defendants who have failed to appear instead of focusing on crime and prevention?

What about the fact that the 75 percent of Florida voters said in a recent Mason-Dixon poll that if a criminal defendant can afford to pay their own bail for release from jail they should not be allowed to be released using tax dollars?

It is a weak argument to keep trying to convince the voters that bail bondsmen don’t care about public safety and only want to see more money put in their pockets. We live and work in our communities; our children go to school and play on our streets; we work hard to run a small business and pay our taxes; we want our communities safe and we want those who commit a crime to be accountable for their own release if able to do so. We know our industry is the most effective and efficient form of pretrial release. We know we are financially and physically responsible for defendants we release on bail. Not the taxpayers.

Support limiting government-funded release from jail. It is the right thing to do.

Update on Florida SB 372 - Pretrial Release

2011-03-24T16:06:00.002-04:00

Published in:

Tuesday SB 372, a bill to limit those who are eligible for government-funded pretrial release, was temporarily postponed in a Senate committee. The sponsor, Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff was unavoidably detained in another hearing.

The postponement did not discourage some heated testimony from the bill’s opponents. Most notable were Broward County Commissioner Stacy Ritter (who called the bill "The Bail Bondsmen Relief Act") as well as Pinellas County Sheriff Jim Coats.

It is noteworthy that almost none of the testimony was about SB 372 nor about who should qualify for pretrial release, nor the eligibility requirements being proposed. Instead, testimony was largely a diatribe about the ills of private surety bail and how government-funded pretrial release is superior.

The assertions made by the bureaucrat critics of the bail industry were almost fictionalized with numerous qualifiers like “it is estimated” or “sometimes." And much of the commentary were road swipes at the entire industry.

For example, Sheriff Coats stated:
"the only place a criminal justice system or a liberty decision is governed by a profit-making entity that will or will not take your business is the bail bond industry…”

Sheriff Coats went on to say that some in our industry were actively opposing this measure and were standing with him. Standing with Sheriff Coats were representatives of the Florida Association of Counties and another surety agent.

One further note; it is one thing for there to be disagreements between colleagues on approach or on the merits of a particular piece of legislation or even whether or not to support such legislation...but the fact that a representative of the surety industry stood shoulder to shoulder yesterday with Stacy Ritter and Jim Coats while they bashed our industry and maligned our profession is both disheartening and disappointing.

The role of sureties is not merely to support its agents and advocate for their success but to honor the bail profession and a system that has stood the test of time.

Tuesday was merely a postponement of a new law that will help preserve the bail profession, but one surety agent's overt support of one who demeans its very existence is an insult to the agents who have lived and died in the line of duty.

Read the testimony at:
http://files.e2ma.net/14267/assets/docs/3-22-11_criminal_justice_transcript.pdf

Mason-Dixon Poll Finds Florida Voters Oppose Use of Tax Dollars for Bail

2011-03-17T09:16:00.000-04:00

March 16, 2011

Contact: Michael Hough
Phone: (240) 405-7098
Email: mhough@alec.org

Mason-Dixon Poll Finds Florida Voters Oppose Use of Tax Dollars for Bail

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 16, 2011) - The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) today released the findings of a recent Mason-Dixon poll showing that Florida voters oppose using taxpayer dollars to bail criminals out of jail, as opposed to defendants posting their own bail. Statewide, 71 percent opposed using tax dollars to bail criminals out of jail, while 18 percent supported and 11 percent were undecided.

ALEC's Public Safety Resident Fellow Michael Hough said, "Last November voters sent a clear message at the polls that they wanted elected officials to cut wasteful government spending so it's no surprise that voters so strongly opposed this criminal welfare program. Floridians are strongly opposed to taxpayer provided bail bonds for criminals who can afford to pay for their release from jail."

Floridians' opposition is reflected in the poll results:

• 78 percent felt criminal defendants who have failed to appear in court on a previous offense should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars.

• 75 percent felt that if a criminal defendant can afford to pay their own bail for release from jail, they should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars.

• Support for theses measure cuts across party lines with 79 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Democrats, and 67 percent of Independents opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to bail non-indigent offenders out of jail.

The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C. from March 3, 2011, through March 5, 2011, with a total of 625 registered Florida voters. The margin of error is no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

ALEC has made reforming government-run bail a priority and supports policies that protect the taxpayer dollar and public safety. For more information please contact Michael Hough, mhough@alec.org.

# # #

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan individual membership association of state legislators, with nearly 2,000 state legislators across the nation and more than 100 alumni members in Congress. ALEC's mission is to promote free markets, individual liberty, and federalism through its model legislation in the states.

Florida Association of Counties Oppose Limiting Tax Dollars for Release

2011-03-11T12:51:00.000-05:00

The Florida Association of Counties (FAC) issued a "Call to Action" today stating it opposes Florida's pretrial release bills, SB0372 and HB1379.

The FAC alert states that any legislation that "limits pretrial agencies' ability to effectively supervise pretrial defendants using locally accepted conditions of release," will be opposed.

Well SB0372 nor HB1379 in any way limits pretrial agencies from effectively supervising defendants. The bills simply state that if a defendant is not indigent and eligible for the services of a public defender, they shouldn't be released on the taxpayers' dime. As it is, Florida taxpayers shell out $30 million per year to fund government-funded pretrial services programs, even for defendants who can and should be paying their own way.

The FAC alert went on to say that "pretrial agencies save tax dollars by allowing defendants who cannot afford bond to remain in the community and keep the community ties that encourage law abiding behavior."

SB0372 and HB1379 doesn't change that scenario at all. Those defendants who can demonstrate to the court that they are indigent and cannot afford a bond, will still be eligible to be released into a pretrial services program.

The FAC alert also states that "such [legislative] changes would result in an added expense to the taxpayer while more individuals wait in jail and increase the likelihood for jail overcrowding." This statement is unfounded.

A recent report by the Florida Legislator's oversight arm for pretrial services programs, confirmed this assertion as false. They examined the 28 Florida counties that have a pretrial services program with the 39 counties that don't have a pretrial services program. This independent analysis concluded that, "there appears to be no correlation between counties' occupancy rate and whether or not they have a program."

This analysis refutes the notion that pretrial services agencies keep jail populations in check - they do not.

We would ask that FAC review these reports from the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability before issuing an alert stating inaccurate facts and opposing legislation that would take the financial burden off of taxpayers.

Release Bill Would Unchain Taxpayers

2011-03-11T11:51:00.000-05:00

Release bill would unchain taxpayers

BY PETE ANTONACCI

Special Correspondent

Published March 11, 2011

Tampa Bay Online

In response to your editorial "Shackle bail-bond grab" (March 8), your readers may wish to consider another policy perspective with the real world in mind.

You argue that Florida Senate Bill 372 "would punish taxpayers to enrich the bail bond industry," when the bill does exactly the opposite.

First, let's examine what the bill does. It primarily changes the law to limit government-funded pretrial release to indigent defendants only. As taxpayer-funded pretrial release was originally created 40 years ago for that very purpose, this seems hardly the "grab" you claim

In fact, what we are witnessing now is that financially well-off defendants are utilizing a taxpayer-funded program to secure their own release when they can afford to pay it. Your readers should regard this as very expensive mission creep.

The premise is simple: If a defendant can pay for a bail bond, then taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill. This change in the law will remove the burden from taxpayers, not add to it.

Second, let's review some recent state reports that show these government-funded services expanding beyond taxpayers' ability to afford them.

A recent report by the state's oversight agency (OPPAGA) showed that during the recessionary 2008 to 2009 report, pretrial services grew an alarming 13 percent in just one year. This growth came despite the fact that the need for such services diminished, as crime had declined by nearly 7 percent in the same time period. Florida taxpayers now shell out $30 million per year to pay for these services - even for defendants who can and should be paying their own way.

Another report gives lie to the often repeated, but false, assertion that pretrial release programs prevent jail overcrowding. The report examined the 28 counties that have such programs and the 39 counties that do not. This independent analysis concluded "there appears to be no correlation between counties' occupancy rate and whether or not they have a program."

Further, when studying Pasco County, which abolished taxpayer-funded pretrial release in February 2009, they concluded, "Its jail population does not appear to be affected."

These two studies clearly demonstrate the fallacy of the fundamental argument in favor of pretrial release services - that they supposedly keep jail populations in check. They do not, and your statement that these programs "have proved economical and effective" is simply unfounded wishful thinking.

And, to be clear, Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff s bill does not seek to eliminate or "gut" these programs, but will simply keep them available only for poor defendants who cannot pay their own bail.

Finally, your inference that SB 372 somehow impacts the use of ankle bracelets or other supervised release programs is just wrong. The bill clearly protects judicial discretion in such matters and only says that if someone can afford to secure their own release, they cannot foist those costs onto taxpayers.

If SB 372 becomes law, there will be little change in how pretrial services are administered in our state, and jail populations will not be affected. But taxpayers will save millions, and these services, which were intended for indigent defendants, will remain intact for those indigent defendants.
The only fundamental change will be that defendants who can afford to secure their own release won't become wards of the state, and they won't be a burden on taxpayers.

Pete Antonacci is an attorney with the law firm of GrayRobinson. He is a former statewide prosecutor who also served as Deputy Attorney General of Florida.

Florida Pretrial Release Legislation Advances for 2011 Session

2011-03-03T16:34:00.001-05:00

Published March 2, 2011

According to recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violent crime is down nationwide and fewer arrests by law enforcement are being made. A 2009 report by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) found that local jail populations dropped by 2.3 percent from 2008 to 2009. This is the first decline in the U.S. jail population since the DOJ implemented the annual survey of jails in 1982. Large jails led the trend with Florida counties Miami-Dade and Orange leading the nation in overall decline of jail populations.

Yet across Florida, 28 counties have a government-funded pretrial services program, which uses millions of tax dollars to release defendants from jail who have the ability to pay for their own release. Government-funded pretrial services programs continue to expand nationwide despite the drop in jail populations. According to the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the arm of the Florida Legislature armed with evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of such programs, Florida taxpayers are footing the bill to the tune of over $30 million annually to allow defendants to be released from jail for free.

Florida’s pretrial services programs do not even consider indigency to be a factor in their release decision. In addition, statewide data on the indigency of defendants in pretrial services programs are not available for comparison purposes. Many defendants currently released through Florida’s pretrial services programs have previous criminal histories and have been able to post a surety bail bond in the past, thus such programs are competing with private enterprise.

Florida Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff, who represents parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties, has filed SB 0372 to end the use of taxpayer funds to release defendants who can afford their own bail. A companion bill is being drafted in the House of Representatives. SB 0372 simply states that:

“It is the policy of this state that only defendants who are indigent and who qualify for the services of the public defender are eligible to participate in a pretrial services program.”

SB 0372 will not cause an increase in jail overcrowding as opponents of pretrial release reform state. The bill will only require that those defendants who can afford bail must pay it. The bill does nothing to change the release status of defendants who can afford bail; it only states how they can be released. Those defendants who cannot afford bail can still be eligible for release through a government-funded pretrial services program if they are determined to be indigent by the court. As a result, both indigent and non-indigent defendants will be released without impacting jail populations.

As an added measure of accountability, SB 0372 will also give counties the option of utilizing private sector resources of the bail industry to facilitate the release of indigent defendants from jail without using limited tax dollars. An increase in public safety and assurance of court appearance will be an extra benefit.

The private surety bail industry has been proven by numerous national studies, including the November 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Report titled “Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts,” to be the most effective means of pretrial release. According to the DOJ study, “Compared to release on recognizance, defendants on financial release were more likely to make all scheduled court appearances. Defendants released on an unsecured bond or as part of an emergency release were most likely to have a bench warrant issued because they failed to appear.”

Allowing defendants who have been arrested for a crime and who in turn can afford to pay for their own release, to instead rely on a government-funded release system, creates a criminal welfare system that only burdens the taxpayers. By restricting government-funded release to truly indigent defendants, the financial burden on taxpayers will be lessened without increasing jail populations. SB 0372 will do just that.

Florida’s pretrial release legislation is a win-win for the taxpayers and for public safety!
_________________
Guest Contributor Melanie Ledgerwood is the Director of Government Relations for Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc. headquartered in Orlando, Florida. http://www.aboutbail.com/agent-center/collateral/florida-pretrial-release-legislation-advances-for-2011-session/

Florida's Pretrial Services Programs Wasting Tax Dollars

2011-03-02T16:06:00.000-05:00

Florida has 28 pretrial services programs funded by taxpayers that provide free jail release to hundreds of defendants each year – regardless of their ability to pay for their own release. Some defendants are court-ordered into the program or court-ordered to be released on their own recognizance (ROR), while others are released “administratively” by jail staff into the program or “administratively” ROR.

The Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA) is charged with evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of Florida’s pretrial services programs. OPPAGA is statutorily required to produce an annual report on Florida’s programs that covers how the programs are funded, the nature of criminal charges of defendants, failure to appear rates and new arrests, compliance with statutory requirements, budget and outcome information, participant fees and compliance with the Citizens’ Right-to-Know legislation.

OPPAGA was asked by the presiding officers of the Florida Senate and House of Representatives to conduct follow-up research based on their last annual report dated December 2010. This additional research compared 2008 and 2009 pretrial services budgets, percentage changes in index crime rates for 2008 and 2009, jail population and occupancy rates and fees charged to program participants.

The annual budget for Florida’s pretrial services programs for fiscal year 2009 range from a low of $100,526.00 to a high of $5,358,619.00. Twelve counties had an increase in their 2009 budget over fiscal year 2008 despite a decline in the percentage of the index crime rate within the county. The following counties who had increased budgets for 2009 are below:

Broward: 3.05 percent budget increase; -4.0 percent decrease in crime
Charlotte: 1.0 percent budget increase; -16.5 percent decrease in crime
Collier: 26.24 percent budget increase; -6.1 percent decrease in crime
Duval: 41.40 percent budget increase; -10.1 percent decrease in crime
Leon: 120.73 percent budget increase; -7.5 percent decrease in crime
Miami-Dade: 9.03 percent budget increase; -6.8 percent decrease in crime
Okaloosa: 14.03 percent budget increase; -8.4 percent decrease in crime
Orange: 134.43 percent budget increase; -12.2 percent decrease in crime
Osceola: 4.26 percent budget increase; -3.3 percent decrease in crime
Palm Beach: 0.44 percent budget increase; -4.5 percent decrease in crime
Polk: 0.71 percent budget increase; -7.8 percent decrease in crime
Santa Rosa: 21.25 percent budget increase; -8.6 percent decrease in crime

OPPAGA also found that jail populations and occupancy rates varied greatly among all Florida counties. Furthermore, they determined that there was no correlation between a county's occupancy rate and whether or not they have a pretrial services program.

This fact is important as advocates of taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs have said that without such programs it will accelerate the need to build more jail beds. We know this is not the case. In fact, Pasco County eliminated its pretrial services program in February 2009 and saved taxpayers $348,000 annually. OPPAGA's most recent follow-up report stated that Pasco County's jail population did not increase after eliminating its pretrial services program. Nor has the population of the 39 other Florida county jails that don't have a pretrial services program dramatically increased.

Florida taxpayers should let their legislators know that their critical tax dollars should be spent more wisely than providing free release from jail!

Moving Forward on Legislative Change

2011-02-16T09:03:00.000-05:00

Last month we met with our friends at the Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA) to discuss pretrial release programs and their expansion in our state (12% last year alone despite a 6.7% reduction in crime). At the time we hoped we could convene a timely meeting to work together on a functional resolution for limiting this expansion without the need for legislation. We believe all sides parted in good faith with that goal in mind.

And while that good faith still exists, to date, a meeting has not taken place to discuss this issue.

Government-funded pretrial release programs continue to expand – even while the FDLE reports that crime in Florida is dropping – and they now cost Florida taxpayers nearly $30,000,000 per year according to the most recent Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA) report.

We have reached out to our friends at FSA to let them know that our agents need relief, they want relief, and while some worry about the impact of legislative action, we simply cannot let another session come and go without some action.

To that end, we wanted you to be among the first to know that we are moving forward in support of a bill filed by State Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff (SB 372) that primarily states:
It is the policy of this state that only defendants who are indigent and who qualify for the services of the public defender are eligible to participate in a pretrial release program.

We expect to announce a House sponsor in the coming days and we hope that each and every one of you will contact your local lawmakers and let them know that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for those who can afford bail.

The Bounty Hunter's Pursuit of Justice

2011-02-16T08:55:00.000-05:00

When felony defendants jump bail, bounty hunters spring into action. It’s a uniquely American system, and it works.

Excerpts: As printed in the 2011 Winter issue of the Wilson Quarterly

By Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and director of research for the Independent Institute. He writes regularly with coauthor Tyler Cowen at the popular economics blog Marginal Revolution.

Article concluded:

The prerogatives of bounty hunters flow from the historical evolution of bail. Bail began in medieval England as a progressive measure to help defendants get out of jail while they waited, sometimes for many months, for a roving judge to show up to conduct a trial. If the local sheriff knew the accused, he might release him on the defendant's promise to return for the hearing. More often, however, the sheriff would release the accused to the custody of a surety, usually a brother or friend, who guaranteed that the defendant would present himself when the time came. So, in the common law, custody of the accused was never relinquished but instead was transferred to the surety-the brother became the keeper-which explains the origin of the strong rights bail bondsmen have to pursue and capture escaped defendants. Initially, the surety's guarantee to the sheriff was simple: If the accused failed to show, the surety would take his place and be judged as if he were the offender.

The English system provided lots of incentives for sureties to make certain that the accused showed up for trial, but not a lot of incentive to be a surety. The risk to sureties was lessened when courts began to accept pledges of cash rather than of one's person, but the system was not perfected until personal surety was slowly replaced by a commercial surety system in the United States. That system put incentives on both sides of the equation. Bondsmen had an incentive both to bail defendants out of jail and to chase them down should they flee. By the end of the 19th century, commercial sureties were the norm in the United States. (The Philippines is the only other country with a similar system.)

Bail was widely admired as a progressive institution when the alternative was jail, but in the 1950s and '60s many judges and law professors began to think that the alternative to bail should be release on a defendant's own recognizance. Bail looked increasingly like a conservative institution that kept people, especially poor people, in jail. Many opinion makers came to support the creation of pretrial services agencies that would investigate defendants and recommend to judges whether they could be safely released on their own recognizance. In essence, the agencies would replace the judgment of bail bondsmen with the judgment of a professional bureaucracy.

In the early 1960s, the Vera Institute of Justice's Manhattan Bail Project in New York City began gathering information about local defendants' community ties and residential and employment stability and summarizing it in a numerical scoring system that it used to identify those who could be recommended for release on their own recognizance. The experiment was successful. The failure-to-appear rate among felony defendants the project recommended for release was no higher than the rate among those released on bail. Largely on the basis of these results, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, which created a presumption in favor of releasing defendants on their own recognizance.

Although the new law applied only to the federal courts, the states have widely emulated the reforms. Every state now has some kind of pretrial services program, and four (Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin) have outlawed commercial bail altogether. In its place, Illinois introduced the government bail or "deposit bond" system. The defendant is required to deposit with the court a small percentage of the face value of the bond. If the defendant fails to appear, he may lose the deposit and be held liable for the full value of the bond. But while a defendant in a commercial bail system who shows up in court must still pay the bondsman a fee, those who do so in jurisdictions with systems like Illinois's get all their money back (less a small service fee in some cases). And the only people empowered to chase down a defendant who has fled are the police.

The results of the Manhattan Bail Project seemed to support the position of progressives who argued that commercial bail was unnecessary. But all that the findings really demonstrated was that a few carefully selected felony defendants could be safely released on their own recognizance. In reality, the project allowed relatively few defendants to be let go and so could easily cherry pick those who were most likely to appear at trial. As pretrial release programs expanded in the late 1960s and early '70s, failure-to-appear rates increased.

Today, when a defendant fails to appear, an arrest warrant is issued. But if the defendant was released on his own recognizance or on government bail, very little else happens. In many states and cities, the police are overwhelmed with outstanding arrest warrants. In California, about two million warrants have gone unserved. Many are for minor offenses, but hundreds of thousands are for felonies, including thousands of homicides.

In Philadelphia, where commercial bail has been regulated out of existence, The Philadelphia Inquirer recently found that "fugitives jump bail . . . with virtual impunity." At the end of 2009, the City of Brotherly Love had more than 47,000 unserved arrest warrants. About the only time the city's bail jumpers are recaptured is when they are arrested for some other crime. One would expect that a criminal on the lam would be careful not to get caught speeding, but foresight is rarely a prominent characteristic of bail jumpers. Routine stops ensnare more than a few of them. When the jails are crowded, however, even serial bail jumpers are often released.

The backlog of unserved warrants has become so bad that Philadelphia and many other cities with similar systems, including Washington, D.C., Indianapolis, and Phoenix, have held "safe surrender" days when fugitives are promised leniency if they turn themselves in at a local church or other neutral location. (Some safe surrender programs even advertise on-site child care.) That's good for the fugitives, but for victims of crime, both past and future, justice delayed is justice denied.

Unserved warrants tend not to pile up in jurisdictions with commercial bondsmen. In those places, the bail bond agent is on the hook for the bond and thus has a strong incentive to bring those who jump bail to justice. My interest in commercial bail and bounty hunting began when economist Eric Helland and I used data on 36,231 felony defendants released between 1988 and 1996 to investigate the differences between the public and private systems of bail and fugitive recovery. Our study, published in TheJournal of Law and Economics in 2004, is the largest and most comprehensive ever written on the bail system.

Our research backs up what I found on the street: Bail bondsmen and bounty hunters get their charges to show up for trial, and they recapture them quickly when they do flee. Nationally, the failure-to-appear rate for defendants released on commercial bail is 28 percent lower than the rate for defendants released on their own recognizance, and 18 percent lower than the rate for those released on government bond.

Even more important, when a defendant does skip town, the bounty hunters are the ones who pursue justice with the greatest determination and energy. Defendants sought by bounty hunters are a whopping 50 percent less likely to be on the loose after one year than other bail jumpers.

In addition to being effective, bail bondsmen and bounty hunters work at no cost to the taxpayers. The public reaps a double benefit, because when a bounty hunter fails to find his man, the bond is forfeit to the government. Because billions of dollars of bail are written every year and not every fugitive is caught, bond forfeits are a small but welcome source of revenue. At the federal level, forfeits help fund the Crime Victim Fund, which does what its name suggests, and in states such as Virginia and North Carolina they yield millions of dollars for public schools. Indeed, budget shortfalls around the nation are leading to a reconsideration of commercial bail. Oregon, which banned commercial bail in 1974, is considering a controversial bill to reinstate it, and even Illinois, nearly 50 years after establishing its alternative system, may once again allow bail bondsmen.

Bail bondsmen monitor defendants, guide them through the court process, and help them show up for trial. When defendants skip town, it's the bounty hunters who track them down. But despite the benefits of commercial bail, bondsmen and bounty hunters don't get a lot of thanks. The American Bar Association has said that the commercial bail business is "tawdry," and Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun once called it "odorous." After Dog Chapman arrested the serial rapist Andrew Luster and delivered him to the Mexican police, Dog was the one who ended up in jail. Bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico, and Chapman was charged with kidnapping despite the fact that (according to him) he had a local police officer with him at the time of the arrest. It surely didn't help Chapman's case that he was not trying to recover a bond that he had posted, since Luster had put up his own money. Luster was quickly extradited by the FBI, which offered Chapman no gratitude or assistance with the Mexican authorities. As if to rub salt in the wound, the judge in the Luster case refused even to reimburse Chapman for his expenses out of the $1 million Luster had forfeited.

Dog Chapman's television show has brought him and the bail bond industry plenty of fame and notoriety, but Chapman is a controversial figure among bondsmen. The famed bounty hunter's checkered history includes prison time, drug abuse, and charges of racism, and many bondsmen think that "Dog" doesn't do much for their image. Bondsmen don't want to be the dogs of criminal justice; they want to be recognized as professionals working alongside police, lawyers, and judges. They are tired of being called "odorous." Bounty hunters want some respect. The record shows that they've earned it.
______________________________________

The full article can be found at: http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1775

The Bounty Hunter's Pursuit of Justice

2011-02-11T08:59:00.001-05:00

The Bounty Hunter's Pursuit of Justice

2011-01-31T16:41:00.001-05:00

When felony defendants jump bail, bounty hunters spring into action. It’s a uniquely American system, and it works.

Excerpts: As printed in the 2011 Winter issue of the Wilson Quarterly

By Alex Tabarrok
Alex Tabarrok is Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and director of research for the Independent Institute. He writes regularly with coauthor Tyler Cowen at the popular economics blog Marginal Revolution.
________

Andrew Luster had it all: a multimillion-dollar trust fund, good looks, and a bachelor pad just off the beach in Mussel Shoals, California. Luster, the great-grandson of cosmetics legend Max Factor, spent his days surfing and his nights cruising the clubs. His life would have been sad but unremarkable if he had not had a fetish for sex with unconscious women. When one woman alleged rape, Luster claimed mutual consent, but the videotapes the police discovered when they searched his home told a different story. Eventually, more than 10 women came forward, and he was convicted of 20 counts of rape and sentenced to 124 years in prison. There was only one problem. Luster could not be found.

Shortly before he was expected to take the stand, Luster withdrew funds from his brokerage accounts, found a caretaker for his dog, and skipped town on a $1 million bail bond. The FBI put Luster on its most-wanted list, but months passed with no results. In the end, the authorities did not find him. But Luster was brought to justice—by a dog (or at least a man who goes by that name). Duane Chapman, star of the A&E reality TV show Dog: The Bounty Hunter, tracked Luster for months. He picked up clues to Luster’s whereabouts from old phone bills and from Luster’s mother, who inadvertently revealed that her son spoke fluent Spanish. He also gleaned useful information from a mysterious Mr. X who taunted him by e-mail and who may have been Luster himself. Finally, a tip from someone who had seen Dog on television brought Chapman to a small town in Mexico known for its great surfing. Days later, he and his team spotted Luster at a taco stand, apprehended him, and turned him over to the local police.

Most people don’t realize how many fugitives from the law there are. About one-quarter of all felony defendants fail to show up on the day of their trial. Some of these absences are due to forgetfulness, hospitalization, or even imprisonment on another charge. But like Luster, many felony defendants skip court with willful intent. The police are charged with recapturing these fugitives, but some of them are chased by an even more tireless pursuer, the bounty hunter.

Bounty hunters and bail bondsmen play an important but unsung role in a legal system whose court dockets are too crowded to provide swift justice. When a suspect is arrested, a judge must make a decision: set the suspect free on his own recognizance until the court is ready to proceed, hold the suspect in jail, or release the accused on the condition that he post a bail bond. A bond is a promise backed by incentive. If the suspect shows up on the trial date, he gets his money back; but if he fails to show, the money is forfeited. We don’t want to deprive the innocent of their liberty, but we also don’t want to give the guilty too much of a head start on their escape. Bail bonds don’t solve this problem completely, but they do give judges an additional tool to help them navigate the dilemma.

Bail might be a rich man’s privilege were it not for the bail bondsman. (Many bondsmen are women, but “bondsperson” doesn’t have quite the same ring, so I’ll use the standard terminology.) In return for a non-refundable fee, usually around 10 percent of the bond, a bondsman will put up his own money with the court. A typical bond might run $6,000. If the defendant shows up, the bondsman earns $600. But if the defendant flees, the bondsman potentially can forfeit $6,000. Potentially, because when a fugitive fails to appear, the court gives the bondsman a notice that essentially says, “Bring your charge to justice soon or your money is mine.” A bondsman typically has 90 to 180 days to bring a fugitive back to justice, so when a defendant jumps bail, the bondsman lets the dogs loose.

Actually, that last image suggesting a massive manhunt is misleading. Bail bond firms are often small, family-run businesses—the wife writes the bonds and the husband, the “bounty hunter,” searches for clients who fail to show up in court. Although a bondsman never knows when a desperate client might turn violent, his job is usually routine, as I found out when Dennis Sew volunteered to show me the ropes. Dennis has been in the business for more than 20 years and in 2009 was named agent of the year by the Professional Bail Agents of the United States.

More on this story to follow . . .

ALEC Supports Private Surety Bail

2011-01-13T16:39:00.001-05:00

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, issued a press release on January 10, 2011 supporting the industry in reducing jail populations.

Jail Population Decreases as the Use of
Commercial Bail Increases

For Immediate Release

January 10, 2011
Washington, D.C.; A new study by the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) found the number of individuals who were held in jail decreased. The overall jail population has decreased from 773,341 in 2007 to 760,400 in 2009. This coincides with an earlier DOJ study that found the percentage of individuals who were released on commercial bail from jail increased from approximately 20 percent in 1992 to over 40 percent today.

Michael Hough, Public Safety Resident Fellow at the American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC) said, “This latest study disproves the myth being pushed by some that the use of bail bonds increases the number of people in jail – we now know in fact the opposite is true -- that the increased use of commercial bail helps to alleviate overcrowding in jails.”

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, which lobbies for the abolition of commercial bail, released a report in 2009 claiming the pretrial jail population was rapidly increasing due to commercial bail (http://www.napsa.org/publications/napsafandp1.pdf). National Public Radio also made a similar argument in a three-piece report entitled, “Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed with Inmates.”

While the number of individuals in jail decreased from 2007 to 2009 the number of individuals in prison continued to grow. Hough said, “Commercial bail is more widely used by local governments and judges because bondsmen are able to quickly free individuals from jail while holding them accountable to return to court to face justice. It is important to note that other factors like a declining crime rate also factored in to the lower jail population, put clearly the antiprivate sector bail lobby will have to find something other than jail overcrowding to howl about."

ALEC's website is http://www.alec.org/

Pretrial Release – Using “proven” methods vs. “evidence-based or simple” methods

2010-12-10T14:42:00.000-05:00

The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights, which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.

Bail laws in the United States grew out of a long history of English statutes and policies. During the colonial period, Americans relied on the bail structure that had developed in

England

hundreds of years earlier. When the colonists declared independence in 1776, they no longer relied on English law, but formulated their own policies which closely paralleled the English tradition. The ties between the institutions of bail in the United States are also based on the old English system. In medieval England, methods to ensure the accused would appear for trial began as early as criminal trials themselves. By the end of the 19^th century, commercial sureties were the normal manner of release.

In the 60’s there was pressure to develop alternatives to money bail; in 1966 President Lydon Johnson signed into law the first reform of the federal bail system since 1789, which created presumption in favor of releasing a defendant on their own recognizance (ROR), or a promise to appear for court. As evidenced by numerous national studies, such unsecured release has led to increased failures to appear for court costing the criminal justice system and taxpayers millions of dollars.

The private surety bail industry has continued to ensure defendants appear for all court proceedings. Bail agents are financially and physically responsible for all defendants released on bail and use no taxpayer funds. But the industry is under increased attacks.

By law, Judges must release defendants on the least restrictive conditions they believe are compatible for appearance at trial. When jails become overcrowded Judges are pressured to release individuals ROR rather than run the risk of setting a bail the defendant can’t secure. And then there are large government-funded pretrial services programs and credit card vendors who release defendants with little to no supervision.

While release on a bail bond through a private surety bail agent has been proven to be the most efficient and effective means of pretrial release, these other release methods are couched as “advancing justice through innovation and technology.”

A Proven Method.
A proven method is defined as “having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.” The private surety bail industry has a “proven method” of release that guarantees the appearance of the defendant in court. If not, the bail agent is 100 percent financially responsible and not the taxpayer. This proven method has been verified through numerous national studies.

Government-funded pretrial services programs began as a means to help indigent defendants charged with minor offenses secure release from jail. Today, they eschew any method of release using financial means – no matter the charge or the criminal history of the defendant – and don’t even consider indigency to be a factor for eligibility. Such programs have faced increasing scrutiny from elected officials and taxpayers as they have grown to become large bureaucratic programs fighting for their survival. Their latest tactic? They claim to use “evidence-based” practices that focus on innovation, technology, research, motivational interviewing and cognitive behavior!

These programs claim such methods will ensure the most effective release decision is recommended for defendants – all on unsecured release. So how does it work you ask?

Well defendants released under government-funded pretrial services programs are “interviewed and assessed” by asking a lengthy series of questions, many of which require specific personal information to be provided, and then pretrial services staff take such data and compile a “research-based” risk assessment to determine if the defendant will show up for court and not re-offend while on release. Your tax dollars at work here!

What type of questions is asked of defendants? Let us tell you.

Have you ever felt you should cut down on your drinking or drug use?
Have people annoyed you by criticizing your drug use or drinking?
Have you ever felt guilty about your drug use or drinking?
Have you had an eye opener the first thing in the morning to steady nerves or get rid of a hangover?
Do you ever use drugs to change the effect of another drug you have taken?
Do you feel . . . nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, so depressed that nothing can cheer you up?
Do you feel that everything is an effort, worthless?
Has a medical doctor ever prescribed medicine for an emotional problem such as depression or nervousness?
Have you been hospitalized for an emotional or behavioral problem?
Did you receive special education services in school for an emotional or behavioral problem?
Have you ever spoken to a psychologist or counselor about an emotional problem?
Have you ever received treatment for an alcohol or drug problem?
Do you have chronic medial problems that continue to interfere with your life?
Are taking prescription medicine for a physical problem?
Does someone contribute to your support?
Does it constitute the majority of your support?
How many people depend on you for their support?
Are you satisfied with your living arrangements?
Do you live with anyone who has a drug or alcohol problem?
Have you even been a victim of emotional, physical or sexual abuse?
What is your frequency of drug or alcohol use?
Do you administer drugs orally, through an IV, smoke, nasal snort?
Which substance is a major problem?

And just how long do you think this process takes? Is it long enough to justify the millions of taxpayer dollars going in to such programs? These are defendants who have been arrested for a crime and have not yet had their day in court. Why are they being coddled by the pretrial services programs and asked such intrusive questions? These defendants have not been found guilty, ordered to probation, drug or mental health programs or any other “program” as a condition of their sentence. Such heavy-handed “intervention” at the front-end is what your tax dollars are being spent on when most defendants can afford to simply pay a nominal fee to bond out of jail. And if they can't afford a monetary bond because they are truly inidgent, let the Judge take the onus for releasing the defendant on their own recognizance.

Pay Bail Simply.
Then we have just the opposite system of release: the swipe-and-go credit card release system! This type of release is when an out-of-state software company is allowed to set-up shop in a county jail and for a hefty non-refundable fee, allows a defendant or their family to “swipe” their way out of jail. And oh by the way – whoever runs the jail gets a piece of the pie as well. For every defendant who swipes their way out, the jail gets a percentage of the transaction. How will this software company ensure that defendants actually show up for their court appearance? What will they do if defendants fail to show? They will do nothing to ensure that those who swipe their way out of jail are present in court. The jail will use more of your tax dollars by having their officers or other law enforcement officers try and find the absconded defendant when they aren’t fighting crime.

How is this method of release, where a company takes a non-refundable premium from a defendant, any different from the private surety bail industry? Both obtain a non-refundable premium but with a bail agent, they are 100 percent financially responsible if the defendant fails to appear for court. Under the other methods of release, the taxpayer is responsible.

And a pretrial services program is about as responsible as the credit card vendor for a failure to appear. If a defendant doesn’t show up for court it’s only a negative statistic for the program. They simply tell the court the defendant “violated” his/her pretrial release and more of your tax dollars are allocated for the sheriff to go out and again try to find the defendant. With a bail agent, it is their livelihood and business on the line.

Feeling generous yet with you tax money this holiday season?

The Truth About Bail.
The private surety bail industry has been characterized by government-funded pretrial services programs as “greedy bail agents” and who “exact” money for bail from defendants while leaving those who can’t afford bail to languish in jail. They have even stretched their theories to state that jails are overcrowded because of bail agents! Statistics 101: a correlation does not translate in to causality. The truth is that small and repeat bonds are the bread-and-butter of many bail agents. We all know there are many repeat offenders in every community. Bail agents build up a client base of such defendants who know that the agent will find and re-arrest them if they don’t abide by the bail contract – appear at court and stay out of trouble!

Research has proven that most defendants are able to bail out of jail within 24-72 hours. Bail agents are a critical component of helping to keep jail populations in-check. And the cost of bail to the defendant? A nominal fee of 10 to 15 percent of the bond in most states; this translates to approximately $100 - $500 maximum for most defendants. Contrast that with a pretrial services officer making from $16 to $25 an hour interviewing hundreds of defendants with their lengthy “risk assessment” tool and it adds up to substantially more than a bail bond would. Not to mention the time defendants remain in jail having to submit to such assessments when they could have been released on a bail bond using no taxpayer funds. Talk about affecting jail overcrowding!

To Sum Up.
Pretrial services programs and swipe-and-go systems completely remove any transfer of responsibility to a licensed and bonded agent who lives and works in the local community. It removes the economic interest that an agent has in making sure the defendant shows up for court. By doing so, we see a reduction in the “show up” rate for court, a rise in repeat crimes, and extra costs to taxpayers for requiring law enforcement to retrieve the missing defendant.

Research has proven that failure to appear rates are higher for defendants released on their own recognizance, deposit bonds and other non-secured release methods, while the private surety bail industry has the lowest failure to appear rate.

Our country continues to face an unprecedented economic crisis that still may take years to recover from. State and local governments have drastically cut budgets while raising fees for services and passing those costs on to already financially-strapped citizens. Private surety bail affords the opportunity to reduce jail overcrowding, increase public safety and improve compliance of those defendants released into the community pending case disposition. Any release method should always take into account the best use of taxpayer dollars and public safety.

As one great Florida Legislator said:

“The fact is that government can always compete with private industry and with the use of tax dollars can put almost any business out of business. If the government wanted to, they could lend money as banks; they could pay more interest than banks. If government wanted to be in the insurance business like private citizens, it could certainly do that. We just put it on the taxpayers’ backs."

And as far as government competing with private enterprise . . . this same Legislator said:

"Hell hath no furry like a bureaucrat who’s been asked not to compete with private industry!"

As we leave 2010 behind and enter in to a new year, citizens all over the country should become vocal advocates and demand that their valuable tax dollars not be wasted by governments wanting to become bigger and bigger to justify their existence to the detriment of public safety.

Hold those who choose to commit crimes accountable for their behavior and their release. Public policy affects public safety.

Giving of Thanks and Free Pretrial Release

2010-11-23T16:36:00.000-05:00

Thanksgiving is a time of giving thanks and celebrating the holiday season with family and friends. Unfortunately it is also the time for taking.

Crime often increases with the beginning of the holiday season. Burglaries, car thefts, shoplifting, robberies, violent crime and other crimes happen with more frequency and can affect any of us. Sadly, the “peace on earth, goodwill toward men” adage isn’t believed by all.

Our hope is that those individuals who choose to commit crimes in our communities will be held accountable for their actions and not just given a slap on the hand. That accountability starts with how a defendant is released after arrest if they are eligible for release.
The private surety bail industry believes that public safety and the wise use of taxpayer dollars should be considered foremost when making a release decision from jail. Too often career criminals with lengthy criminal and driving offense histories, failures to appear and violations of probation continue to be released on taxpayer funds through pretrial services programs. These programs have been couched by proponents as the ONLY means to reduce jail populations and truly protect public safety. Where once such programs were designed to target indigent defendants charged with minor, non-violent crimes, today they say everyone should be entitled to taxpayer release.

Proponents of pretrial services programs say that if people are staying in jail because they can’t afford to get out, that is not fair! Is it fair to the person who was a victim of crime that their perpetrator can be released on their dime? We are talking about people who have been arrested and accused of committing a crime. The fact that pretrial services programs claim it is "offensive" to ask these arrested individuals to do anything whatsoever to inconvenience them to get released from jail is in-and-of itself offensive.

One undeniable fact is this: when someone is released on a bail bond, it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything! That bail agent is completely financially and physically responsible for the defendant. Bail agents are small business owners who are trying to make a living and make a difference in their communities at the same time. They bail out good and bad individuals everyday but do so knowing they are serving a public safety purpose. Some people make mistakes and find themselves in trouble with an arrest; others flaunt the law and continue to commit crimes until they are caught. Bail agents work with both sides of this spectrum. And bail agents risk their lives to find people who have absconded from court and their responsibility to receive their sentence.

And now, they must compete against the government who wants to release arrested individuals back in to the community. Who then should bear the burden for making sure those released individuals come back to court? Should it be the taxpayers or private industry? If you release someone through a pretrial services program, let them out the front door so to speak, if they don’t show up for court law enforcement is called to try and find the absconded individual using more of our tax dollars.

You see what pretrial services programs won’t publicly tell anyone is that they target people that are likely to post bail. Why? Because they know they are better “candidates” to show up for court as they have done so in the past. Indigency isn’t even considered in most pretrial services programs. You can be a wealthy individual who has means and assets, be charged with a crime, and still be released by taxpayer funds!

Pretrial services programs claim they are essential because they “monitor” people for drug/alcohol testing or electronic monitoring while awaiting case disposition. Some do and some don’t. However, we tend to forget a fundamental principle and that is, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Our society has taken upon itself to assume a paternalistic role to force people who have not yet been found guilty of a crime into “programs” before they have had a trial and a disposition of the case. To engage in an “intervention” and force people into programs before they have had their day in court is suggesting we know what is best for someone else. People may not have to pay for a bail bond, but they are paying through pretrial services programs, which can add up to much more than a one-time bail bond would.

When pretrial services programs get on their soap box and tell the world that it shouldn’t matter how much someone makes or what crime they may have been charged with in order to eligible for a pretrial services program, it says loud and clear that we’ve lost our path of getting back to the fundamentals of what the pretrial stage of accusation is all about.

So those who commit a crime this Thanksgiving holiday may very well be given an expression of thanks or an act of giving on the part of pretrial services programs . . . in the form of free release on your tax dollars!

Pretrial Justice Institute States: Connecticut state officials begin to question whether the state’s bail industry protects the public

2010-11-11T13:34:00.000-05:00

The Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to advocate nationwide for “fair and effective” pretrial practices that eliminate inappropriate detention, optimize diversion from prosecution, and maintain community safety. They, like their sister organization, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA), have aggressively and publicly stated that compensated sureties should be eliminated. You see, these organizations believe that no one should have to pay for their own release from jail despite whatever crime they have allegedly committed. These defendants should just be able to walk out of jail with a “promise” to return for court or the taxpayers should pay for their release through government-funded pretrial services programs!

So the private surety bail industry always finds it humorous when the PJI attempts to advocate for increased release on taxpayer funds stating that such release “maintains public safety.” The private surety bail industry has been functioning for decades and has been proven by numerous national studies to be the most effective and efficient means of pretrial release. When you have your own money on the line for your release . . . or that of your parent’s, grandparents or friend’s . . . you inherently have more incentive to behave and attend all of your court hearings.

A recent article in the Connecticut Post (CTpost.com) entitled “Officials say Connecticut's bail system in need of major reforms” highlighted this issue of bail agents undercutting and discounting bail bonds and the problems that such practices cause. As the private surety bail industry has repeatedly stated, it does not condone bail agents who engage in unethical and unprofessional behavior, such as undercutting or discounting bail bonds for defendants. The overwhelming majority of bail agents across this country abide by the laws and regulations of the industry because they live and work in the same communities they release defendants into. They do care about public safety.

However, as is the practice of the PJI, they posted a blog article that conveniently failed to point out the reality of bail releases in the criminal justice system. Thus, we felt it necessary to offer our point of view and highlight several instances regarding the PJI’s negative slant toward the bail industry in the Connecticut article:

· The article stated that there are more than 17,000 accused felons in Connecticut who have skipped out on their bail bonds. According to Connecticut’s state Judicial Branch, there are 17,856 pending cases in the state in which criminal defendants failed to appear for their court cases while either free on bonds or on written promises to appear. Written promises to appear (release on recognizance) are issued daily by either the Judge or jail personnel but NOT the bail agent. To slant the perception that all failures to appear are solely due to the bail industry is completely false.

· National research has shown that the vast majority of defendants who fail to appear on a bail bond are apprehended and rearrested by their bail agent and brought back to the jurisdiction of the court at no cost to the taxpayer. When a defendant fails to appear on a “promise to appear” or other taxpayer-funded release mechanisms, more tax dollars are simply spent to try to find them taking valuable time away from fighting and preventing crime.

· PJI’s blog stated that “unfortunately, a criminal justice system that primarily leaves the decision of pretrial release to a for-profit industry will never protect communities from dangerous individuals.” Again, a totally false statement. The Connecticut article clearly stated that it is the Judge who has the ultimate authority to decide to give a defendant a bond or order the defendant held without bond. The bond amount is set based on the recommendation of a state bail commissioner, who has interviewed the defendant, and following arguments from prosecutors and defense lawyers. It is based on this detailed information and dialog, which the bail agent is never a party to, that the Judge sets or denies bail. Once bond has been granted the bail agent is simply a tool to affect the release of the defendant – in no way is the release mechanism the decision of the bail agent!

· The PJI blog also stated, “the only release requirements bondsmen have to satisfy are financial – which means that, even where bondsmen are requiring the mandatory 10% fee from defendants, dangerous defendants with money will obtain release. Connecticut does not require its bondsmen to screen defendants for risk or likelihood of re-arrest – which means bondsmen, will only ever make their decisions based upon financial incentives.” Bail agents assess the risk of each and every defendant they release on a bail bond as in the end it is their livelihood on the line. Yes, financial incentives are a part of the equation as with any other business decision. However, bail agents put their lives on the line each and every time they must pursue a defendant who has failed to appear. As a citizen, I would much more appreciate knowing that when a criminal defendant willingly fails to appear to accept their judgment in court, that someone who has a financial incentive to find them is looking for them rather than a government worker sitting in an office who has no face-to-face interaction with the defendant or their family, and simply pushes a paper to the court when a defendant fails to appear.

· The PJI also asserts that “defendants charged with very serious crimes are likely to have higher bonds placed on them, they will inevitably represent higher income for bondsmen, making them the most appealing clients.” The bail industry is often a family business and as such, bail agents often interact with other families unfortunately involved in the criminal justice system. Repeat offenders tend to go to a bail agent they know and trust and these individuals make up the “bread and butter” of a bail agent’s business. Yes, defendants with high bond amounts who seek out a bail agent are welcomed if the risk is good. However, the vast majority of bonds posted by a bail agent are the small and repeat ones.

· As highlighted in the Connecticut Post article, Bridgeport, Connecticut’s own State's Attorney, John Smriga, said the current system puts witnesses and victims in criminal cases in jeopardy because the “current bond statute makes it possible for violent offenders to get out of jail with little financial risk to themselves, creating a serious risk that these individuals will not comply with court-ordered conditions of release endangering victims and witnesses or simply not returning to court." Bail agents don’t set the bond schedule; Judges do. When violent offenders are released from jail, we believe the public would again much rather have someone with a financial incentive to be watching that defendant rather than a government worker who has nothing to lose when the defendant fails to appear or is rearrested.

· Connecticut state law also requires bail agents to accept promissory notes from defendants for release, which can put the bail agent in danger when attempting to collect on those notes.

· Representative Michael Lawlor, co-chair of the Connecticut legislature’s Judiciary Committee, acknowledges that those who pose a serious safety risk are let out of jail and those that don't often remain behind bars. Jails with effective government-funded pretrial services programs should focus on such individuals who are truly indigent and have committed a non-violent offense. However, these individuals are often over looked by government-funded pretrial services programs while they release defendants charged with serious offenses and who have the ability to secure their own release from jail.

The Connecticut article pointed out that Representative Lawlor has introduced bills five times in an effort to put controls on the bail bonds business yet each bill has failed. The last bill would have required bondsmen to certify under oath on a form that they were charging the legal premium. Professional and ethical bail agents shouldn’t have a problem with certifying under oath they have charged a defendant the legally required premium. Those that do shouldn’t be in the business.

Unlike the PJI, the private surety bail industry has been working with the Connecticut legislature and the Department of Insurance, at their request, for six sessions now in an effort to resolve the irresponsible bonding practices of the few bail agents who participate in unethical behavior. This same legislature has rejected the government-funded pretrial services system that the PJI and others tout as they understand such system creates more problems than it solves. The private surety bail industry will continue to welcome our involvement in bettering the criminal justice system in Connecticut and all other states.

The problems that should haunt the citizens of Connecticut are the scare tactics the PJI is purporting and not the value the private surety bail industry brings to the criminal justice system.

Bail Industry Seeks to Ensure Safety

2010-11-02T10:23:00.000-04:00

The Connecticut Post published an editorial on Monday, October 25 headlined “Bail system reforms are long overdue.” In certain cases, the private surety bail industry agrees.

Like any industry in this country, there are a few bail agents who unfortunately create a negative image of the whole industry by engaging in unethical and unprofessional behavior. Competition has been at the forefront of business in this country for decades and can be a healthy incentive to increase the quality of service provided. However, competition turned to the negative can create situations that hurt many. The vast majority of professional bail agents across this county don’t condone undercutting bail bonds just to make a little more money over their competition because they know in the end, public safety will be affected.

What the public needs to remember is this: bail agents don’t make the decision as to who gets out of jail and on what method. Judges, who are elected by the citizenry, make the ultimate release decision for defendants charged with a criminal offense based on the facts presented to them. The bail agent is a tool for the court and the defendant to affect the release from jail if the Judge orders a secured monetary bond. The bail agent then contracts with the defendant and an indemnitor to secure the release and assure the court that the defendant will appear at all required court proceedings until disposition of the case. If the defendant fails to appear for court, the bail agent is responsible to either return the fugitive to justice or pay the bond to the court.

Bail agents must submit a “power” to the court to release a defendant, as issued by the insurance company who underwrites the bail agent. In essence, the “power” guarantees the full financial release of the defendant into the custody of the bail agent. Bail agents who choose to release a defendant on a “someone’s word” of future financial payment is not only doing so illegally, but they are going down a very slippery slope that the bail industry doesn’t condone despite the unsavory practices of other fellow bail agents. Professional and ethical bail agents shouldn’t have a problem with certifying under oath they have charged a defendant the legally required premium. Those that do shouldn’t be in the business.

Another key point is this: neither the bail agent, a taxpayer-funded pretrial release service nor the Judge who grants a defendant Release on Recognizance (a promise to appear) can guarantee to the court that the released defendant will not commit a new criminal offense while released from jail. Judges release hundreds of defendants on a promise to appear daily.

The private surety bail industry has a long and historic partnership in the criminal justice system and is the most effective and efficient means of pretrial release. Is the system flawed in some areas? Probably. Is the industry working hard to ensure that bail agents conduct themselves with the upmost professionalism and abide by laws of the state they post bail in? Absolutely. As the article stated, when dangerous people are taken into custody the system, and not the bail agent, need to ensure that they stay there.

The private surety bail industry will continue to promote the taxpayer and public safety benefits it provides in our communities.

Melanie Ledgerwood - Director of Government Relations
Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.

Private Surety Bail at Work

2010-10-08T16:11:00.019-04:00

AccreditedBail would like to share an example of what bail agents across this country do to ensure that defendants who are released on bail and fail to appear, ultimately answer to the criminal justice system. This is why private surety bail works at no cost to the taxpayer!

Read the story online at http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/bondsman-makes-it-his-mission-to-catch-one-particular-bail-jumper/1125992

St. Petersburg Times - Bondsman makes it his mission to catch one particular bail jumper

CLEARWATER — If you watch the Tampa Bay Rays on television, you've probably seen him. Bald head. Olive skin. Downcast eyes. Wanted for beating up a woman, among other dirty deeds.

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office is looking for Brian Andrew Word, but perhaps not nearly as intensely as Al Estes Bail Bonds Inc. It's spending $1,400 a month on TV ads featuring Word during all Rays games and offering $7,500 for information leading to his arrest.

"He's a menace to society," said Al Estes Sr. He's dangerous, Estes said, especially to women. Still, he's not the worst the bail bondsman has run across.

So why is he so focused on this guy?

There's the money. Estes stands to lose nearly $100,000 if Word doesn't turn up, though it wouldn't be the first time he's lost money on a bail jumper.

He tells every customer who comes through his office: You might make mistakes, you might be addicted or dishonest, but you don't ignore your court date.

Don't make him come after you. Because he will.

"We're going to get him," said Estes, 77 years old and not afraid of a slick, 6-foot, 41-year-old "good-looking party guy" who apparently took the old man for a fool.

One day in October 2009, a lawyer called Estes' office seeking help for Word, arrested on charges of battery by strangulation, residential burglary and other charges connected to a dispute with Word's former girlfriend. It wasn't Word's first battery arrest.

Estes agreed to bail out Word if someone would vouch for him. Soon, Word's mother, Milene Johnson, showed up. Estes has good luck when mothers get involved. People rarely skip town and leave their mothers to deal with bail bondsmen.

The longer Word is a fugitive, the more Estes Sr. stands to lose. Estes had to pay almost $100,000 to the court since Word missed a February court date, but if he catches Word within two years, he'll get at least half of the amount back. After two years, Estes gets nothing.

Post Conviction Bond - An Innovative Partnership with the Private Surety Bail Industry

2010-10-08T15:53:00.002-04:00

Many states across the country are grappling with prison overcrowding and the rising cost of incarceration. As a result, convicted prisoners may be released from their sentences early and return to the public realm. Naturally, such releases raise questions regarding public safety.

National studies continue to show that the private surety bail industry is the most effective and efficient method of pretrial release. That's because the industry is financially and physically responsible for defendants they release on bail and instill a network of the defendant's family and friends into the bail contract. All parties together become accountable for the defendant's appearance in court and adherence to release conditions. This same concept can be applied to supervising and being responsible for convicted prisoners released early from prison.

When a prisoner is released from prison prior to the completion of their sentence, they are released on parole. Conditions of parole often include things such as obeying the law, refraining from drug and alcohol use, avoiding contact with the parolee's victims, obtaining employment, and maintaining required contacts with a parole officer. With the posting of a post conviction bond, the bail agent would work in partnership with the parole officer by financially ensuring the paroled prisoner complies with the terms of parole.

The same principles as with a pretrial release bond would be in place with a post conviction bond: if the parolee fails to comply with any terms of parole, the court will order the bond forfeited and issue a warrant for arrest. The bail agent then has a certain amount of time to locate the parolee and return him/her back to the custody of the court. If the bail agent is unable to return the parolee back to the court, a financial penalty equal to the full amount of the bond would have to be paid to the court by the bail agent.

National studies have shown that pretrial defendants released on private surety bail are less likely to commit crimes while out on bail. The industry believes our participation with the post conviction bond will have the same results, which is a win-win for the taxpayers and a direct affect on public safety.

Some states are already allowing the use of post conviction bonds with great success. It is a great resource that the private surety bail industry can provide. We hope that other states will consider using such bonds in the future.

NAPSA Bans NC Clerk of Court from Conference

2010-09-29T09:08:00.003-04:00

The Honorable Brian L. Shipwash, Davidson County Clerk of Superior Court in North Carolina, has been a steadfast advocate for holding the criminal justice system accountable - both in the private surety bail industry and in the government-funded pretrial services arena.

In every industry a few individuals can create a negative opinion that can sometimes reflect on an entire industry. The private surety bail industry works diligently to promote the professionalism of our agents, helping the public and elected officials to understand that we are small business owners who provide a valuable service that has a direct affect on public safety and taxpayer savings. Bail agents do not tolerate the few who choose to disparage the industry through unethical practices.

Nor does Clerk of Court Shipwash. Over the last seven years, Clerk of Court Shipwash has taken the private surety bail industry to task in his county and state, making sure bail agents are adhering to statutes in the interest of justice. When they weren't, he steadfastly worked to ensure they followed all of the laws of his state and if not, they were no longer allowed to operate. He also exposed poor oversight by the state's Department of Insurance, who is charged with licensing bail agents, for not properly making sure all licensure practices were followed.

Clerk of Court Shipwash was clearly not favoring the private surety bail industry, but holding the industry accountable. It is something he also expects from government-funded pretrial services programs. One would think that government-funded pretrial services programs would welcome this type of subjective feedback and would value Clerk of Court Shipwash's desire to make both industries accountable in terms of public safety and the wise use of taxpayer dollars. However, that is not the case.

Clerk of Court Shipwash has been vocal in his expectations that government-funded pretrial services programs should concentrate on defendants most likely to benefit from their services in order to maximize the amount of taxpayer dollars going to fund such programs. Through data that Clerk of Court Shipwash has obtained, he does not always support the claim of government-funded pretrial services programs that such programs have a direct affect on reducing jail populations. In fact, across the nation jail populations have significantly dropped yet funding for government-funded pretrial services programs have not decreased. If pretrial services programs focused on their true purpose - to secure the release of indigent defendants charged with nonviolent, first-time offenses - then perhaps they would garner more support from those who doubt their value. But today, most government-funded pretrial services programs do not consider indigency to be a factor for release and defendants charged with serious offenses with lengthy criminal histories are routinely released through these programs. Clerk of Court Shipwash believes that government-funded pretrial services programs should be created and maintained in anticipation of criminal justice needs rather than in response to jail overcrowding problems.

Clerk of Court Shipwash paid to attend the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) annual conference in San Diego, which is taking place this very week, to learn more about how he as an officer of the court could continue to work in partnership with both government-funded pretrial services programs and the private surety bail industry. But instead, he was told via a letter that he could no longer attend the conference.

Clerk of Court Shipwash received a letter from NAPSA where he was informed "your active involvement in the commercial bail bond industry and that industry's active endorsement of bills that are meant to limit and restrict the mission of pretrial programs is in direct opposition to our goals and standards. As such, the Board has determined that it would be inappropriate for you to attend. It also begs the question as to why you would want to attend if not to gather information that could be fashioned and used against pretrial programs in furtherance of the bail bond industry's agenda."

Clerk of Court Shipwash was not willing to accept this dismissal via a form letter as he felt the NAPSA board needed to hear why he wanted to attend the conference as well as his philosophy of holding both industries accountable. So he went to San Diego to plead his case. After all, he is an elected official of the court and a member of the criminal justice system. Surely an agency such as NAPSA would understand that reasoning and reconsider granting him admission to their conference.

Absolutely not.

Clerk of Court Shipwash was still denied entrance at the conference - but not only by NAPSA but also by their fellow sister organization, the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), which contributes significantly to the NAPSA conference and their overall goals and objectives. Now we have two nonprofit organizations saying an elected official of the court cannot attend their conference.

So while the private surety bail industry has welcomed Clerk of Court Shipwash's involvement to make the system even more accountable to the courts and the taxpayers, these nonprofit organizations whose mission is to eliminate financial bail, clearly sent the message that they don't need any feedback or partnership with Clerk of Court Shipwash. And being an elected official doesn't matter where they are concerned.

Could the reason for this public rejection be based on the fact that Clerk of Court Shipwash has sought to provide accountability to the government-funded pretrial services arena by insisting that the indigent population be served by such programs instead of using taxpayer dollars to release defendants who are able to secure their own release? Could the reason be that Clerk of Court Shipwash has data and performance statistics to show that not all pretrial services programs are adhering to NAPSA and PJI goals of operation? Could it be that Clerk of Court Shipwash and others are pointing out to citizens and elected officials the kind of defendants being released on our tax dollars that greatly affects public safety?

If such information was not true there would have been no need for Florida and other states to enact a Citizens' Right-to-Know Act, which requires pretrial services programs to provide detailed data on defendants released through their program so that the public could ascertain if their tax dollars were being put to good use. There would be no need to exclude others from their conferences or from collaborating together to make the criminal justice system better.

These are organizations that receive significant federal tax dollars and yet they have the audacity to exclude not only private citizens who have paid to attend their conference, but also an officer of the court.

What are these goverenment-funded organizations trying to hide?

NAPSA Conference Closed To Those Who Have a Different Viewpoint

2010-09-22T12:43:00.004-04:00

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) is holding its 38th annual conference and training institute in San Diego, CA September 26-29, 2010. NAPSA is a nonprofit national organization, which advocates for the pretrial release and pretrial diversion fields. In other words, they promote the use of government-funded pretrial services programs to release defendants from jail and supervise them using taxpayer dollars rather than release and supervision through the private sector.

Accredited attended the 2009 conference and paid for an "early bird" registration the first part of May of this year in anticipation of again attending an informative conference. However just this past Monday, September 20, 2010, we received a terse letter saying we were no longer welcome to attend the conference! Recently NAPSA had added a conference attendance disclaimer to their website in short stating that "by attending the NAPSA ACTI the attendee agrees with and supports the NAPSA standards." The letter Accredited received stated "your active involvement in the commercial bail bond industry and that industry's endorsement of bills that are meant to limit and restrict the mission of pretrial programs is in direct opposition to our goals and standards."

Well what exactly do NAPSA's standards state?

Standard 1.4 (f) states that "compensated sureties should be abolished." Standard 1.4 (g) goes on to state that "no defendant released under conditions providing for supervision by the pretrial services agency should be required to have bail posted by a compensated surety." Finally NAPSA has stated that "financial conditions should never be set simply by reference of a bail schedule that establishes money bail amounts based on the nature of the charge and state flatly that financial conditions should never be used in order to detain the defendant."

Never??? No matter the crime or the person's criminal history??? Just let them walk out of jail free while the citizens hope that a pretrial services officer will adequately supervise that person from their office???

The private surety bail industry has always said that there IS a role for government-funded pretrial services programs in the criminal justice system. The industry has never advocated for the elimination of such programs as they have for our industry. We believe indigent first-time and non-violent offenders should be the population pretrial services programs focus on, as these are the individuals who often don't have the financial means to get out of jail and based on their crimes, are low public safety risks to the community.

It is nearsighted for an organization like NAPSA to think that the private surety bail industry, made up of small businesses who provide a valuable service to the criminal justice system at no cost to the taxpayer, would embrace their standard of "eliminating compensated sureties," in order to attend their annual conference.

And, is booting a private citizen from their annual conference even legal? NAPSA receives a generous amount of federal funding from the U.S. Court System and U.S. Pretrial and Probation Services. These are federal tax dollars and many employees from these systems attend the NAPSA conference every year.

Unfortunately those who disagree with NAPSA's philosophy, despite being fellow criminal justice professionals, are simply not worthy of attending NAPSA's conference.

Well, there is always next year. Perhaps NAPSA will have a different viewpoint then.

The Pretrial Justice Institute Should Tell the Whole Truth

2010-09-09T15:02:00.005-04:00

The Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), an organization whose mission is to promote government-funded pretrial release services across the country, recently posted a blog article indicating that Pasco County, Florida Sheriff Bob White was unduly seeking an increase to his budget. The PJI claimed such a budget request would be unwarranted if the Sheriff had not eliminated the jail's government-funded pretrial release program. According to the PJI, there would be no need to request additional funding for deputies to fight crime and make our streets and neighborhoods safer because the pretrial release program, "operated to facilitate the pretrial release of defendants who were deemed to be low-risk, while ensuring high-risk defendants were detained," before it was eliminated.

Really? Only low-risk defendants were released?

Well if you believe that individuals charged with . . . battery, domestic violence, driving under the influence and with a minor; possession of and trafficking in controlled substances, heroin, cocaine, cannabis; aggravated battery, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, aggravated battery on a pregnant person, hindering communication with law enforcement, burglary, grand theft, intentional threat to do harm, carrying a concealed firearm, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, battery by strangulation, driving with license revoked as a habitual offender, driving with no valid driver's license and other serious driving offenses . . . are deemed to be, "low risk," I would venture to say that you would be in the minority. Except for proponents of government-funded pretrial release programs.

Because you see, individuals charged with these very same offenses are routinely released every day into pretrial release programs using your tax dollars with less oversight than provided by the private surety bail industry. Some programs have judges releasing defendants into these programs while others allow jail staff to make the release decision. Legal challenges have already prevented jail staff from making release decisions in Florida counties.

So what else did the PJI not share in their blog posting? Lots.

The Pasco County Sheriff's Office eliminated its government-funded pretrial release program in 2007 - not 2009 as PJI stated. This was done as a budget-cutting measure in order to put more deputies on the street. By doing so, the Sheriff actually saved taxpayers $348,000 annually. As proponents of government-funded pretrial release programs always say when any budget cut is proposed for their program, the PJI and pretrial release practitioners claimed that without Pasco County's pretrial release program, defendants would languish in jail for weeks, months and years because they could not afford monetary release. What Sheriff White already knew was that defendants were able to pay for their own release from his jail while others were routinely released on their own recognizance. The Pasco County pretrial release program was not one that was efficient enough to keep so it was eliminated.

And guess what happened?

In 2008, the jail's population increase was only five defendants over the previous year when the program was still in place. When considering the population growth of Pasco County during that same time, there was a net decrease in per capita jail bed days.

Pasco County Commissioner Michael Cox, in a 2010 letter to Florida Legislators, stated it had been the county's experience that the pretrial release program had no effect on reducing the jail's population and through elimination of the pretrial release program, "the reality is that we have seen no measurable increases in jail population." He went on to say that the county's experience has shown that, "defendants appear in court at higher rates if they are under the supervision of a surety agent." In his final paragraph, Commissioner Cox summed it up as follows: "The bottom line is that our Sheriff eliminated an un-needed program that has not caused the negative reaction that many people projected. What it did was allow Pasco County to have four additional deputies on the street."

In addition, Pasco County Commissioner Jack Mariano wrote a similar letter to Florida Legislators in 2010 stating that, "we eliminated our pretrial release program; some said it would cause jail overcrowding. It did not." Commissioner Mariano felt that defendants who had to pay for their own release from jail were more responsible for their own conduct. In his words he said. "I for one would rather have the private industry tracking down defendants than have to use precious county resources to do so." By eliminating the pretrial release program, "this allows the Sheriff to have more boots on the street and has kept Pasco County safer as a result."

The PJI states that, "$90 million is a lot of money to spend on corrections, particularly when this recession has created so many other pressing needs." Did the PJI not fully understand the other responsibilities of the Pasco County Sheriff's Office besides running the jail? Seems not.

You see, the Sheriff's Office is responsible for providing law enforcement services to Pasco County's 500,000 residents as well. This includes responding to approximately 250,000 calls for service annually in addition to running other critical programs within the Sheriff's Office: the Uniform Operations Bureau, the Criminal Investigations Unit and the Communications Unit. These three critical components of the Sheriff's Office comprise numerous functions and law enforcement services to the citizens of Pasco County. To imply that all $90 million of the Sheriff's budget is used strictly to manage the jail is very misleading and totally inaccurate. And remember, approximately $1.6 million of the Sheriff's budget is allocated to health insurance and pension costs, which are out of his control.

The PJI would have us all believe that if not for a government-funded pretrial release program, judges would simply have to, "guess the risk level" of a defendant in order to make a release decision. The Pasco County jail's Central Booking section provides inmate processing for all law enforcement agencies operating within Pasco County. Inmates are frisk searched, photographed, fingerprinted, entered into and released from the inmate management system. Central Booking conducts various computerized checks for each arrest and release. In 2008, the section processed a total of 37,666 inmates. In addition, both the State Attorney and the Public Defender have information on a defendant's criminal history and community ties during the defendant's initial appearance before a judge if they haven't already been released, and this information is shared with the judge in order to make an informed release decision.

The PJI's real beef, along with their partner, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA), is that many defendants are able to post a monetary bond for their release and that fact is against all that the PJI and NAPSA believe in. You see, both organizations have as their standards that, "compensated sureties should be abolished." They also believe that financial conditions for release from jail should, "never be used in order to detain the defendant." Regardless of their alleged crime.

The need to have to hire additional deputies in Pasco County, and counties all across our country, in order to keep our neighborhoods and communities safe may not be one we would all choose in a perfect world. In these tough economic times many government and private organizations alike have to make hard budget decisions. But public safety should be the last element cut if at all possible. Taking money from the Sheriff to hire additional deputies, which based on his experience and wisdom as Sheriff is not something he would just ask for if not needed, and instead using those taxpayer funds to re-establish a pretrial release program based on the philosophy that financial conditions should never be imposed for release from jail - regardless of the alleged crime or the ability to pay for release - is not a, "re-evaluation of how to best spend taxpayer dollars on community corrections."

Only a person with a heart of stone could read the PJI's advice without laughing!

Getting Out of Jail On Credit

2010-08-30T16:34:00.003-04:00

A St. Petersburg Times editorial published on August 15, 2010 entitled, "Getting out of jail moves into the plastic age," stated getting out of jail on credit was, "priceless." The editorial failed to mention that the new system might also be, "dangerous" and "irresponsible."

For the Sheriff to hire an out-of-state online service to, in effect be responsible for making sure defendants show up for court, has obvious problems written all over it. How will this software company ensure that defendants actually show up for their court appearance? What will they do if defendants fail to show?

We can answer those two questions.

First, they will do nothing to ensure that those who swipe their way out of jail are present in court. Second, they will simply call the Sheriff's Office to retrieve the AWOL defendant, thereby incurring more costs to the citizens. You see, when someone pays for bail, it is the bail agent's responsibility to find and retrieve the errant defendant at no cost to the taxpayer.

From all appearances, these swipe-and-go methods are not only a cash cow for local governments and/or Sheriff's; they completely ignore the reality of costs associated with no-show defendants, a large percentage of who are likely to commit another crime.

The editorial stated that limiting these credit card systems appears to be an, "unnecessary protection for the bail business," fails to recognize the fundamentals of what local bail agents do. When someone commits a crime, a Judge determines the flight risk and the potential danger the defendant may pose to the community. In order to keep our jails from becoming over-crowded, the Judge can either release the person on his/her own recognizance, which is a promise on their part to return for court, put them in a government-run and taxpayer-funded pretrial services program, or set an amount of bail to guarantee that the person will return on his/her court date.

In the third scenario, a private and local bail agent will accept responsibility for the defendant's return and will charge the defendant and not the taxpayer to provide that service. Once the responsibility is transferred to the bail agent, it is that agent's job, who has money on the line, to make sure the defendant returns to court. By all accounts, including years of statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, this system works extremely well and costs taxpayers nothing.

The swipe-and-go system run by an out of state online company completely removes the transfer of responsibility to a licensed and bonded agent who lives and works in the local community. It removes the economic interest that an agent has in making sure the defendant shows up for court. By doing so, we will see a reduction in the, "show-up rate," a likely rise in repeat crimes and extra costs to taxpayers for requiring law enforcement to retrieve the missing defendant.

Turning this part of our criminal justice system into a system akin to buying gas - commit a crime and be out of jail with no hassles and no inconvenience - will have long-term negative consequences and will cost taxpayers money in the long run and will do nothing to keep our streets safer.

For the St. Petersburg Times to minimize or trivialize these so called, "Spring Break" crimes is misguided. We are talking about dangerous drunk drivers, assaults on local residents and other crimes that are more than simply mischievous. A drunk driver or an assailant should be considered a very real criminal and a very real threat to our public safety. The swipe-and-go methods of release simply make it easier for those criminals to be back out on the street quicker and with virtually no oversight.

Priceless!

Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Releases

2010-06-21T13:25:00.003-04:00

Case Review Number Seven: Darnita J. Carter

Darnita Carter was arrested on 03/01/2010 for possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor) and released by the court through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program. She was adjudicated guilty of the offense.

Ms. Carter's criminal history is as follows:

10/2003: petit theft (second degree misdemeanor): released through a notice to appear; adjudicated guilty

03/2004: petit theft $100 or greater (first degree misdemeanor): case disposed of at first appearance; adjudicated guilty

04/2004: theft and uttering forgery (third degree felony): remained in jail; adjudication withheld

12/2005: possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor) and criminal mischief (second degree misdemeanor): case disposed of at first appearance; adjudicated guilty

05/2008: narcotic equipment possess/use (first degree misdemeanor): case disposed of at first appearance; adjudicated guilty

06/2008: prostitution or lewdness (second degree misdemeanor): remained in jail; adjudicated guilty

01/2009: possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor): case disposed of at first appearance; adjudicated guilty

09/2009: uttering forgery and forgery (third degree felony); possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor): remained in jail; adjudicated guilty

Obviously hasn't learned any lessons or stopped her criminal ways!

Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Releases

2010-06-14T10:10:00.004-04:00

Case Review Number Six: Shawn Schuman

Shawn Schuman was arrested on 03/19/2010 for possession of cannabis less than 20 grams and possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanors) and released by the court through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program. The case is still open.

Mr. Schuman's criminal history is as follows:

06/1998: criminal mischief less than $200 (second degree misdemeanor): released through a summons - nolle prossed/dropped by state

01/2002: battery/2 counts (first degree misdemeanor): released on a bail bond - no information filed by state

11/2002: battery (first degree misdemeanor) and tampering with a witness to hinder communication to law enforcement (third degree felony): released on a bail bond - tampering charge dropped; adjudication withheld on battery charge; violation of probation - adjudicated guilty

11/2003: state filed charges for offense committed in July of fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement (third degree felony) and resisting law enforcement officer without violence (first degree misdemeanor) and capias issued (executed): remained in jail - nolle prossed/dropped by state (note: also charge of driving without a valid driver's license, driving without headlights and flee/attempt to elude law enforcement officer not revoked by CT for 07/2003: notice to appear issued; court record indicates defendant failed to appear; disposition unknown)

01/2004: possession of a controlled substance (second degree felony) and resisting law enforcement officer without violence (first degree misdemeanor): remained in jail - adjudicated guilty

02/2006: criminal mischief less than $200 (second degree misdemeanor) and possession of cocaine within 1000' feet of a business with intent to sell (first degree felony): released on a bail bond - no information filed by state

08/2006: robbery (second degree felony) and grand theft 3rd degree (third degree felony): released on a bail bond - no information filed by state

06/2008: kidnapping with intent to inflict harm/terrorize with a weapon (life offense); possession of a firearm by convicted felon (second degree felony); aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (third degree felony); and battery (first degree misdemeanor): information filed by state on 08/18/2008 and capias issued (unexecuted) - nolle prossed/dropped by state

02/2009: possession of controlled substance (third degree felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor): released on a bail bond - nolle prossed/dropped by state

Back on the street, except this time released on your money!

Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Releases

2010-06-07T10:05:00.003-04:00

Case Review Number Four and Five: Derrick Cornell Phillips and Rodney Deshawn Alexis

Derrick Phillips was arrested on 01/02/2010 for possession of cannabis less than 20 grams (first degree misdemeanor) and released by the court through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program; he was adjudicated guilty.

Mr. Phillips' criminal history is as follows:

07/2009; 09/2009; and 10/2009 (consolidated cases): three controlled substance offenses (third degree felony); one count adjudication withheld; two counts nolle prossed/dropped by state; violation of probation - adjudicated guilty
05/1992: violate county ordinance (second degree misdemeanor) and controlled substance offense (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty
07/1996: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (third degree felony) and aggravated battery with great bodily harm (second degree felony) - nolle prossed/dropped by state
12/1998: controlled substance offense (third degree felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor); controlled substance offense dropped by state; adjudicated guilty on drug paraphernalia charge; violation of probation - adjudicated guilty
08/1999: possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
01/2004: battery on law enforcement officer (third degree felony); possession of cannabis less than 20 grams (first degree misdemeanor); urinating or defecating in public (no level) - adjudicated guilty

Rodney Alexis was arrested on 01/01/2010 for disorderly conduct (no level) and was released by the court through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program; no information was filed by the state.

Mr. Alexis' criminal history is as follows:

09/2004: battery/domestic violence (first degree misdemeanor) - no information filed by the state
09/2006: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudication withheld
12/2006: corrupt by threat of public servant or family (third degree felony) - no information filed by the state
01/2009: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - two counts (third degree felony); battery (first degree misdemeanor); attempted murder (third degree felony); aggravated assault/intent to commit felony - two counts (third degree felony); counts four-six were, "not charged by the state" and defendant was released on own recognizance; counts one-three had the bond significantly reduced by court - nolle prossed/dropped by state

Who do you think is watching Mr. Phillips and Mr. Alexis this time around?

Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Releases

2010-06-01T13:04:00.005-04:00

Case Review Number Three: Carlos Javier Saez

Carlos Javier Saez was arrested on 01/01/2010 for battery (first degree misdemeanor) and released by the court through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program. On 02/04/2010 a capias was issued for Mr. Saez and he was rearrested on 05/17/2010 (see below for the new arrest charges). The Clerk's database doesn't indicate the reason why the capias was issued but we would venture to say Mr. Saez failed to appear for an arraignment hearing in February. Your tax dollars arrested him, let him out of jail and your tax dollars put him back in jail again!

Mr. Saez' criminal history is as follows:

10/2001: dealing in stolen property and theft (third degree felony) - no information filed by state
09/2002: burglary of conveyance (third degree felony) and petit theft (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
04/2002: possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of cannabis less than 20 grams
12/2002: trespass on property or conveyance (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
07/2003: trespass (second degree misdemeanor) and resisting law enforcement officer without violence (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
09/2004: burglary of a structure (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty; aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (second degree felony); resisting law enforcement officer without violence and provide false identification to law enforcement officer (first degree misdemeanor) - nolle prossed/dropped by state
12/2005: driving with license revoked as an habitual offender (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty
11/2008: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - disposition unknown
08/2009: robbery with a firearm (first degree felony); aggravated battery and possession of a concealed firearm by convicted felon (second degree felony) - no information filed by state

So what charges was Mr. Saez rearrested for on 05/17/2010 when the capias issued in February was finally served?

Domestic battery by strangulation (third degree felony)
Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (third degree felony)
False imprisonment (third degree felony)
Tampering with a witness to hinder communication to law enforcement (third degree felony)

The case is still open and Mr. Saez is sitting in the Orange County Jail!

Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Releases

2010-05-24T09:28:00.006-04:00

Case Review Number Two: Christy Howell

Christy Howell was arrested on April 3, 2010 for burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery (first degree felony); tampering/harassing a witness (first degree misdemeanor); petit theft of $100 or more (first degree misdemeanor); and trespass (first degree misdemeanor) and released by the court through Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program.

Christy's criminal history is as follows:

06/1993: battery (first degree misdemeanor) - nolle prossed/dropped by the state
03/1997: burglary of a structure (third degree felony) - nolle prossed/dropped by the state
11/1997: possession of a controlled substance (third degree felony) - adjudication withheld
05/1998: prostitution - 3 counts (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudication withheld
07/1998: prostitution (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
11/1998: prostitution - 4 counts (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
02/1999: prostitution or lewdness (second degree misdemeanor); prostitution - 2 counts (first degree misdemeanor); prostitution - subsequent offense (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
07/1999: enter/remaining in place for purpose of prostitution; prostitution or lewdness; prostitution (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
10/1999: prostitution or lewdness; direct/transport for purpose of prostitution; prostitution - subsequent offense (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
12/1999: solicitation to commit prostitution; direct/transport for purpose of prostitution; prostitution - subsequent offense (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
09/2000: solicitation to commit prostitution (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
10/2000: enter/remaining in place for purpose of prostitution and prostitution or lewdness (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty; direct/transport for purpose of prostitution (first degree misdemeanor) - nolle prossed/dropped by state
01/2002: trespass after warning (second degree misdemeanor) and possession of drug paraphernalia (first degree misdemeanor) - no information filed by state
04/2002: enter/remaining for purpose of prostitution and prostitution or lewdness (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
09/2003: prostitution or lewdness (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty; enter/remaining in place for purpose of prostitution (first degree misdemeanor) - nolle prossed/dropped by state
09/2006: violation of domestic violence injunction (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
12/2007: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
01/2009: prostitution or lewdness (third degree felony) and enter/remaining in place for purpose of prostitution (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
01/2009: introduce contraband into county facility (third degree felony) - no information filed by state

Your tax dollars put to good use by this release?

Make Criminals Be Accountable for Their Own Release from Jail

2010-05-19T09:22:00.006-04:00

Over the past five months, the Orange County, Florida jail has released literally hundreds of defendants using your tax dollars through the jail's pretrial release program. Hundreds more have been released on their own recognizance by simply, "promising" to appear for court dates. Such scenarios are happening in jails throughout the country.

When pretrial release programs were first created in the 60's, they were designed to focus on indigent individuals charged with first-time, non-violent offenses who could not afford a monetary bond. These types of defendants were appropriate as pretrial release programs offer minimal supervision and does not have the hands-on interaction with a defendant and their family as a bail agent does. In the 80's such programs began to release defendants charged with more serious offenses in the guise of controlling jail populations. Today individuals charged with crimes such as domestic violence, battery, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, DUI, burglary, prostitution, false imprisonment, possession and selling of controlled substances, cannabis, cocaine, driving with no valid driver's license, driving with license revoked as habitual offender and grand theft are routinely released without any financial security to ensure they appear for court.

We will be highlighting several defendants who were released through the jail's taxpayer-funded pretrial release program and who have what we believe are lengthy and serious criminal histories. Should such individuals have been held in jail? Not necessarily. But their release mechanism should ensure that the public is protected and that the defendant appears for all court hearings until disposition of their case. Having to pay for your own release from jail gives someone more incentive to be accountable than a, "get out of jail free card" does.

The bottom line: when ensuring all court appearances and monitoring defendants, the private surety bail industry does it better and cheaper. Critical tax dollars should be spent wisely and efficiently. Don't use such dollars to compete against private enterprise that already has a proven track record of success. There are plenty of other areas your dollars can be spent on!

Case Review Number One: Daniel Dasque
Daniel was arrested on 04/22/2010 for three counts of possessing ammunition by a person who committed a delinquent act (second degree felony); he was already out on bond for a previous offense. The court allowed Daniel to be released through the jail's pretrial release program on the new offense.

Daniel's criminal history is as follows:

12/1995: grand theft 3rd degree motor vehicle (third degree felony) and resisting officer without violence (second degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
10/1997: controlled substance offense (second degree felony) - adjudicated guilty; possession of weapon in commission of a felony (third degree felony) and possess firearm/concealed weapon by convicted felon (second degree felony) - both nolle prossed/dropped by state
03/1998: introduce contraband in county facility (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty; possession of cannabis less than 20 grams
10/2000: possession of controlled substance (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty; possession of cannabis less than 20 grams
10/2002: kidnapping (life); robbery with firearm (first degree felony); false imprisonment (second degree felony); aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (third degree felony); theft (third degree felony); carjacking (third degree felony) - all nolle prossed/dropped by state
04/2002: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (fine) - adjudication withheld
03/2003: resisting law enforcement officer without violence (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
09/2004: possession of controlled substance (third degree felony) and possession of cannabis less than 20 grams
02/2006: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - nolle prossed/dropped by state
03/2006: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - nolle prossed/dropped by state
01/2007: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
02/2008: possession of controlled substance (third degree felony) and tampering with physical evidence (third degree felony) - adjudicated guilty; possession of cannabis less than 20 grams
08/2009: driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (first degree misdemeanor) - adjudicated guilty
04/2010: possession of weapon or ammunition by convicted felon - 9 counts (second degree felony); possession of cannabis less than 20 grams

Do you think Daniel deserved to be released on your tax dollars?

Public policy affects public safety!

Florida Pretrial Release Legislation

2010-05-05T12:52:00.007-04:00

The Florida legislative session has ended but not the fight! Thanks to every bail agent, friend and advocate in Florida and across the country, who stepped up, made calls, sent e-mails, reached out to local media and went the extra mile for our pretrial release legislation! The private surety bail industry in Florida proposed good language that would have restricted eligibility for release under Florida's taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs. But the legislation ultimately failed to pass.

A big thanks to Representative Chris Dorworth, Representative Adam Fetterman and Senator John Thrasher for their hard work and commitment to protecting Florida taxpayers' dollars and public safety.

We learned much during this past legislative session. We learned that those that support taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs will misuse statistics, misstate what the bills do and generally resort to whatever tactics are necessary to mislead lawmakers and the public in protecting their turf.

We also learned that we have some strong friends and allies.

But most importantly, we learned that our cause is a good cause. There was not one thing said that undermined our basic premise that bail is more effective than taxpayer-funded pretrial release and that the private surety bail industry saves taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Given that our opponents were forced to use misleading statements and statistics underscores this fact.

We are excited about the 2011 legislative session and we will be even more prepared to get new bills passed. So stay engaged in the effort as we move forward!

The Revolving Door of Crime

2010-04-29T16:57:00.006-04:00

How frustrating it must be for law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day to protect us to then see people they arrest for a criminal act back on the street again and again. Who is making sure these individuals show up for their court hearings? Who knows where these individuals live and work, what their social habits are, where their hangouts are, who their friends are, what family members support and care for them and will help them remain out of trouble? Who will be responsible for finding these individuals and arresting them if they fail to appear for court or violate other conditions of release?

Their bail agent.

Bail agents are physically and financially responsible for defendants they release on bail. They know where their clients should and should not be and will arrest them and bring them back to jail if they fail to be accountable for their behavior. Appearing in court is a key element of that responsible behavior. While it is true that not even a bail agent can prevent an individual from committing a new crime while out on bail, the level of contact and supervision with a defendant is much greater than if released on your tax dollars. And, the bail agent uses his/her own resources and funds to find a defendant and put then back in jail. Not your money.

It is not a crime to hold an individual responsible for paying for their own release from jail if they have been arrested for a criminal offense. Yes, there are truly indigent individuals who are arrested for crimes. But if that indigent individual has a revolving door history of committing crimes, should you still pay for their release? What lesson is learned by that? Taxpayer-funded release from jail should be reserved for truly indigent individuals charged with minor and non-violent crimes who have no other resources or family and friends to assist in their release.

Florida's Legislative session ended Friday, April 30, 2010. The private surety bail industry attempted to pass a House and Senate bill that would have streamlined taxpayer-funded release through Florida's pretrial release programs. But some of your elected officials in Tallahassee thought the industry was being too tough by requiring individuals to pay for their own release from jail based on their crime and financial ability. So, we the taxpayers, will continue to allocate millions of dollars to release individuals arrested for a criminal offense through Florida's 28 counties that have a taxpayer-funded pretrial release program. And, thousands more dollars when law enforcement is tasked with trying to find individuals that fail to appear under such programs. But that may take some time because Florida's law enforcement agencies have thousands of active warrants that still haven't been served.

The private surety bail industry cares about our communities, public safety and our role in the criminal justice system. We will not stop advocating for less taxpayer-funded release methods that puts us all in danger. We are strong and we are committed.

Public policy affects public safety.

Hold Government Accountable for Pretrial Release Policies

2010-04-23T12:33:00.004-04:00

Note: this article was published on Gainesville.com on April 22, 2010

In response to the April 18, 2010 article in the Gainesville Sun titled, "Sheriff opposes bills that could crowd jail cells": The Florida legislation in no way takes away judicial discretion to order a defendant into mental health or drug court programs or other forms of community supervision, such as GPS monitoring, even if the defendant is not eligible under the legislation for taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs. Treatment is an important alternative to incarceration and the bills do not, "undercut" the policy for a judge to order such treatment.

The bills most simply put require defendants who can afford to pay for their own release from jail to do so. Advocates of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs want the public and our elected officials to believe that if a defendant can't be released under their program, they will automatically languish in jail. The opposite is true. Defendant who have the ability to pay for a bail bond typically do so within 48 to 72 hours. Thus, taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs can then focus on defendants whom they have determined do not have the ability to pay for their own release or who do not have family or friends who can do so for them.

The bills are not a, "bailout" for the bail industry. In a country built on the backs of small business, does the bail industry have a special interest in preserving the livelihood of hundreds of hardworking, independent bail bond agents. Yes. The bail industry is no different than any other small business in its efforts to protect against government intrusion. But just as important, the bail industry has a special interest in educating the public on how their tax dollars are being used to subsidize the release of criminals and a special interest in warning taxpayers about pretrial release practices that affect their public safety.

If local control of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs had any consistency whatsoever, perhaps statewide legislation wouldn't be needed. However, the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the arm of the Legislature that is charged with evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of Florida's taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs, has stated that such programs' annual reports do not contain outcome data required by statute. If they even submit them. Further, programs that do report data use different methods to compute the data, to the point that there is not enough data to compare defendants released on your tax dollars to those released through the private sector. Not only are millions of taxpayer dollars going to fund these pretrial release programs, but then the data can't even support the effectiveness of the programs.

The majority of people across this country are law-abiding citizens. The work hard, pay their taxes, try to raise a family and protect them along the way. They know the consequences for criminal behavior and choose to avoid unlawful behavior. So why then should law-abiding and responsible citizens be asked to subsidize the release of people who choose not to be law-abiding but who instead willingly commit crimes - many over and over again?

Florida's reporting counties allocated $26,582,463 in tax dollars to fund pretrial release programs, which for the most part are created locally by an administrative order and not by legislative action and are not regulated as other components of the criminal justice system. The average cost to the taxpayer to release a defendant under Florida's pretrial release programs based on the funding is $1,511.56 per defendant. Some counties simply decided not to report to the Legislature as required while others only submitted information they deemed important. Is that accountable behavior to our citizens?

Jail populations are down all over Florida and much of the country, yet taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs are using scare tactics and telling your elected officials that the, "sky will fall and millions of more taxpayer dollars will be needed if the Florida bills pass." In reality, counties with taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs have higher costs of detention per-capita and higher per-diem rates than counties without pretrial release programs. In fact, 39 Florida counties do just fine without such programs.

It's time to hold government programs accountable to the citizens who fund them. Public policy affects public safety.

Deborah Jallad
President
Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.

Note: to view the article on Gainesville.com go to:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100422/NEWS/100429825/-1/opinion

Law Abiding Citizens Pay for Criminal Behavior

2010-04-19T09:53:00.003-04:00

An April 15, 2010 article published on Brandenton.com (Manatee County) said two well-known phrases come to mind regarding proposed Florida legislation that would streamline taxpayer-funded pretrial release practices in the 28 counties that have such programs: "politics as usual" and "pay to play." As stated in the article, "the issue boils down to whether Florida lawmakers will serve society or special interests."

Well, let's talk about that for a minute.

The author's intent is to smear and discredit the bail industry with suggestions of dirty handed, "politics as usual" and "pay to play" slogans. The author refers to the legislation as a, "bailout" for the bail industry in an effort to stir up negative emotions towards the business men and women who work in the bail industry. However, what the article failed to tell the public about is the little known agenda of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) and the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to eliminate private surety bail nationwide and their lobbying efforts to promote the interests of pretrial services programs across the country.

In a country built on the backs of small business, does the bail industry have a special interest in preserving the livelihood of hundreds of hard working independent bail bond agents? Yes! The bail industry is no different from other small businesses in its efforts to protect against government intrusion. But just as important, the bail bond industry has a special interest in educating the public on how their tax dollars are being used to subsidize the release of criminals and a special interest in warning taxpayers about pretrial release practices that affect their public safety.

Advocates of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs routinely tell the public and our elected officials that the people they release on our tax dollars are not really, "bad people" or those that have committed really, "bad crimes." As evidence, Manatee County says their taxpayer-funded pretrial release program allows people with, "almost spotless records who have been jailed on charges in non-violent crimes to be released," . . . but under supervision.

Supervision? A national survey conducted by the PJI indicates that the most commonly used form of supervision used by taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs is an automated call-in system. A defendant is required to phone in weekly to the automated system . . . a system paid for by tax dollars. Is this form of pretrial release supervision truly protecting the good and safety of the greater society or simply benefiting the interest of those accused of criminal acts?

Accountability? Florida's taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs are required by the Florida Legislature to produce a weekly register that details information on defendants released through their programs. They are also to produce an annual report by March 31st of each year to the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the arm of the Legislature that is charged with evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of Florida's taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs. However, the latest OPPAGA report states that many of Florida's pretrial release programs' annual reports do not contain outcome data as required by statute. If they even submit them. Further, programs that do report data use different methods to compute the data, to the point that there is not enough data to compare defendants released on your tax dollars to those released through the private sector. Not only are millions of taxpayer dollars going to fund these pretrial release programs, but then the data can't even support the effectiveness of the programs.

The majority of people across this country are law-abiding citizens. They work hard, pay their taxes, try to raise a family and protect them along the way. They know the consequences for criminal behavior and choose to avoid unlawful behavior. So why then should law-abiding and responsible citizens be asked to subsidize the release of people who CHOOSE not to be law-abiding, but who instead willingly commit crimes - many over and over again? Are taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs servicing the interests of criminals above the good of the greater society?

The, "rub" is not getting more clients to post a bail bond; the, "rub" is allowing people who choose to commit crimes to be released on taxpayer funds. In Manatee County alone, the number of people getting released from jail on taxpayer funds went from 1,500 in 2008 to 2,150 in 2009. Per the article, this figure is expected to, "soar again as this year probation screeners have more time to look into a suspect's background before reporting to the judge."

Florida's Pretrial Release Programs by the Numbers:

The following figures were obtained in the 10-08 OPPAGA report for reporting counties:

140,411 defendants were assessed and interviewed for pretrial release;
57,514 defendants were declared indigent by the court;
19,181 defendants were recommended for pretrial release; and
17,586 defendants were granted non-secured pretrial release.

The reporting counties allocated $26,582,463 in tax dollars to fund Florida's pretrial release programs, which for the most part are created locally by an administrative order and not by legislative action and are not regulated as other components of the criminal justice system. The average cost to the taxpayer to release a defendant under Florida's taxpayer-funded pretrial release system based on the funding allocated is $1,511.56 per defendant. For Manatee County, that equates to $3,249,854 for 2009.

Jail populations are down all over Florida and much of the country, yet taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs are using scare tactics and telling your elected officials that the, "sky will fall and millions of more taxpayer dollars will be needed if the Florida bills pass."

Dr. David E. Krahl, Ph.D., Public Policy Consultant/Registered Lobbyist in Saint Petersburg, Florida, conducted a recent review of the average cost of detention per-capita and the per-diem rates of Florida counties with and without taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs. His review actually showed that these rates were higher in counties with pretrial release programs:

Average Cost of Detention Per-Capita:
Counties with pretrial release programs = $91.14
Counties without pretrial release programs = $86.24

Per-Diem Costs:
Counties with pretrial release programs = $65 per day
Counties without pretrial release programs = $55 per day

It seems the 39 Florida counties without a taxpayer-funded pretrial release program are doing better than those Florida counties that have such programs!

So why do you think the 28 Florida counties with taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs are making such a fuss? Do you really believe, based on the type of releases highlighted throughout these blogs, that people who only commit non-violent crimes with, "spotless records" are the only people being released on your tax dollars? Have you ever seen a government program become smaller rather than bigger? Wouldn't you want to protect your taxpayer-funded program if you were funded in the hundred's of thousand's or millions of dollars rather than see it eliminated? Would you really want to share information that shows your program may not be as effective as it claims?

As far as the, "politics as usual" claim: don't be fooled into thinking that only the bail bond industry gives to elected officials in Tallahassee or elsewhere. But check for yourselves. Also take a look at the campaign contributions to some of the Florida Sheriffs that are complaining about the bills. Quid pro quo? Pay to play?

The private surety bail industry does hope the Florida bills, "pass muster in the Legislature," because we do put taxpayers' interests first.

Public policy affects public safety.

Florida's Pretrial Release Legislation: Limiting a "Criminal Welfare System"

2010-04-09T15:26:00.005-04:00

With the current economic climate, much discussion has taken place around the country on how best to spend limited taxpayer funds and on what services and programs. State and county governments are faced with drastically cutting budgets while trying to maintain core services that benefit the citizens and communities.

One core service that all agree should not be sacrificed is public safety. How you effectively and efficiently ensure that public safety is held harmlless when dealing with increased budget woes can be a difficult tightrope. Jails are one of the largest expenses county governments must budget for. Overcrowded jails lead to increased incarceration costs for the taxpayers yet releasing potentially dangerous individuals from jail can create public safety issues in the community.

Across the country a growing debate has ensued regarding the manner and method of release from jail. Private surety bail, whereby a defendant posts a non-refundable minimal percentage fee of the total bond with a bail agent (for example in Florida the percentage is 10 percent), is what most people probably believe happens in the majority of the time. However, defendants also often post a full cash bond with the court for their release and can recoup some of those funds if they appear for all court hearings, less court fees and/or fines. There are also notices to appear, where a law enforcement officer will issue a notice to appear to the defendant whereever the alleged offense occurred instead of taking the individual to jail. Another release mechanism is release on recognizance, where a Judge or jail personnel release the individual on their promise to return for all court hearings. The last form of release is one that has garnered much of the debate - taxpayer-funded pretrial release.

When Florida's jails were severely and dangerously crowded in the 70's and 80's, taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs were established specifically to assist in the release of un-sentenced indigent defendants charged with minor offenses and who were unable to post a monetarty bond. Such programs helped lower jail populations while ensuring that defendants ordered for release did not languish in jail. Despite the fact that these progrtams claim to still adhere to this mission, their own release statistics show otherwise.

Pretrial services programs have a place in the criminal justice system as does the private surety bail industry. The core function of pretrial services programs is to conduct a thorough investigation into every defendant booked into jail to include their criminal history, social/community ties, financial status, failures to appear, violations of probation, etc., so that the first appearance Judge can make an informed release decision. Indigent defendants charged with non-violent offenses and granted release by the court, are the type of individuals such programs were designed to focus on - not those defendants who can afford to pay for their own release and who are charged with more serious offenses.

Advocates of taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs want to know, "Who will monitor conditions and report compliance or non-compliance to the courts? Who has the professionally trained staff with expertise to collaborate with treatment providers and key system stakeholders in the criminal justice community? Who does the court expect to supervise and monitor special conditions of release even if they place bond on a detainee? And finally, who should the court system trust with accurate, objective, confidential information?" if defendants are not released under their control.

The answer to these questions already exists. The professionally licensed and highly regulated bail agent.

While ensuring the appearance of a defendant in court is the core responsibility of the bail agent, it is by no means their only duty. Many bail agents provide GPS monitoring and drug/alcohol testing and if not, often provide community referrals to defendants for these very services. A bail agent who bonds a defendant out of jail and who has added conditions of release will work with community stakeholders to ensure the defendant is meeting those conditions. Private surety bail has been used for centuries and has earned the trust and respect from the courts and criminal justice partners. Bail agents take confidentiality very seriously. A bail agent collects detailed information on a defendant and their family, assesses risk and is completely financially and physically responsible for a defendant released on bail. Private surety bail generates revenue for the state instead of taking revenue . . . and, bail agents pay their fair share of taxes to the state as well.

Let's take a look at the type of criminal offenses occurring and the subsequent releases through a taxpayer-funded pretrial services program in one Florida county:

For example, in Orange County, Florida, one of 67 Florida counties, 2,662 individuals were arrested within the last 30 days alone. Some offenses would be considered, "minor" in nature, while others were clearly serious and/or violent ones. While all of these arrested individuals have only allegedly committed the offense they are arrested for, the arrest cannot be ignored. Under our Constitution everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty; however reality is that many of the people arrested every day have prior criminal and/or driving arrest histories, failures to appear and violations of probation. Many have served time in state and/or federal prisons. A thorough risk assessment and investigation into each arrested person's backgroud should be conducted to determine the best method of release from jail that will ensure the person's appearance in court and protect public safety.

According to statistics from the Orange County, Florida jail, their population capacity sits at approximately 85 percent, as it has been for many months. As of today, the jail was holding 1,714 un-sentenced defendants charged with felony offenses and 294 un-sentenced defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses. Of course, felony offenses are more serious in nature and carry heavier sentences if convicted. Proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs want citizens to believe that the jails are not filled with, "really bad people," and that most of the alleged crimes committed are minor in nature. They claim most defendants are indigent and can't afford a monetary bond for release, so in order to not crowd their jails, they feel it appropriate to use your tax dollars to release and, "supervise" these defendants in the community until their case is disposed of. It makes no difference that many of these defendants are not new to the criminal jsutice system or that they were able to pay for their release in the past. If a defendant says they have no money, they must be telling the truth and thus, become, "indigent."

Take a look at the types if alleged crimes people were arrested for in Orange County over the last 30 days:

Battery domestic violence (includes by strangulation; when pregnant; tampering with witness to hinder communication to law enforcement; defendants with prior domestic violence charges; violation of injunctions; violation of pretrial release conditions)
Aggravated assault/battery domestic battery (includes with/without weapon; with great bodily harm)
Battery/aggravated battery
Assault/aggravated assault (includes on law enforcement officer)
Battery/dating violence (includes by strangulation; aggravated assault)
Aggravated assault/battery with firearm and/or deadly weapon
Aggravated stalking
Sexual battery
Felony battery
Lewd/lascivious battery/molestation
False imprisonment
Resisting law enforcement with violence
Child abuse/neglect
DUI (includes prior convictions; .15 or greater; property damage and/or personal injury)
Possession of cannabis/drug paraphernalia (includes with intent to sell/deliver; over/under 20 grams)
Possession of cocaine (includes with intent to sell/deliver; trafficking)
Grand theft 3rd degree (includes up to $20,000; with firearm; with motor vehicle)
Petit theft (includes retail; prior offenses)
Trespass (includes after warning; refusal to leave; occupied and unoccupied)
Burglary (includes possession of burglary tools; occupied and unoccupied; with assault/battery)
Possession of concealed firearm/weapon (includes by convicted felon; in commission of a felony)
Robbery (includes with a firearm/deadly weapon; subsequent force; sudden snatching)
Possession of ammunition by convicted felon
Shooting firearm from vehicle
Prostitution/solicitation
Scheme to defraud
Driving with license suspended/revoked (includes revoked as habitual offender)
Driving with no valid driver's license
Fleeing/alluding law enforcement with lights and sirens
Violation of probation
Failure to appear

Do these offenses seem minor and non-violent in nature?

Defendants charged with the following offenses are being released into Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial services program, with the majority of defendants calling in to an automated telephone answering service for, "supervision." Rarely is there face-to-face contact between a defendant and a pretrial services officer, no field visits are conducted to a defendant's place of work or residence and no interaction occurs with a defendant's family or friends. Somestimes a Judge may order GPS monitoring and drug/alcohol monitoring. GPS monitoring is done by a private community provider who reports violations to the pretrial services program, who in turn informs the court. The jail has the ability to do minimal alcohol/drug testing but must rely on community providers for more in-depth testing. These costs are passed on to the defendant and many programs charge an, "administrative service fee" for release. Orange County charges the defendant $19 every three months for telephone, "supervision."

So aside from mainly reporting violations to the court, which a bail agent is also obligated to do, what does Orange County's taxpayer-funded pretrial services program really do? What the private surety bail industry has said all along should be their core function: conducting a thorough investigation on each defendant so the first appearance Judge can make an informed release decision. All of the millions of extra dollars spent to, "release and supervise" defendants is unnecessary!

Yet in Orange County, defendants continue to be released into the pretrial services program for the following offenses, despite their ability or non-ability to pay for their own release:

Battery domestic violence
Battery on person 65 years or older
Aggravated battery (includes on pregnant person)
Intentional threat to do violence
Tampering with a witness
Driving with no valid driver's license
Driving with license expired > 4 momths
Driving with license suspended/revoked (includes with/without knowledge; revoked as habitual offender)
Possession of cannabis <>
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Possession of Methadone
Possession of Oxycodone
Possession of Alprazolam
Possession of controlled substance (includes sell/manufacture)
Possession of cocaine (includes trafficking)
Obtain drug by fraud
Introduce contraband into county facility
Petit theft/larceny
Failure to leave property when ordered
Obstruction by disguished person/false information
Destruction of evidence
False information to law enforcement
Defrauding an innkeeper >$300
Criminal mischief
Loitering/prowling
DUI (includes with minor in car; .20 >)
Prostitution
Lewdness
Grand theft 3rd degree
Trespass after warning

The private surety bail industry has always acknowledged the role and purpose of pretrial services programs and continues to do so even with the passage of the proposed Florida pretrial release bills. Our goal is to educate the citizens and inform them on inappropriate ways their tax dollars are being used that particularly affects public safety.

A recent Mason-Dixon poll of Florida voters showed that:

87 percent felt if a criminal defendant can afford to pay their own bail for release they should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars;
94 percent felt criminal defendants who have previously failed to appear for court should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars; and
86 percent felt a criminal defendant previously convicted of a violent crime should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars.

These results are very similar to what Orange County taxpayers said in response to a mailer Accredited sent to registered voters regarding release through the Orange County jail's taxpayer-funded pretrial services program. The message is clear: taxpayers don't want to fund a, "criminal welfare system" that fosters no accountability to the defendant for their actions.

To the detriment of collaboration and the efficient use of taxpayer dollars, advocates of pretrial services programs in Florida and across the country where such programs are being challenged, are spreading falsehoods, propaganda and misinformation regarding the true benefits and mission of the private surety bail industry. Pretrial services programs and two national associations that represent them, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) and the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) aggressively support the abolition of private surety bail, the only remaining privatized element of the criminal justice system which costs taxpayers nothing.

Both national organizations support standards that call for, "The abolition of compensated sureties" (NAPSA: foreward; introduction; key principles; standard 1.4). These organizations feel that every defendant, regardless of their ability to pay for their own release, the offense they have been charged with or their criminal history, should be released without any financial conditions or accountability. And, the very taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs across the country that use your tax dollars to release and supervise defendants from jail, also use your tax dollars to pay dues to these organizations that clearly want to eliminate a private industry with a proven track record for effectivenesss and accountability.

Advocates of pretrial services programs are telling your elected officials that if HB 445 and SB 782 pass, their jails will be overcrowded, causing taxpayers to spend millions of dollars to house and/or build new jails. Such programs want you and your elected officials to believe that if someone can't be released under a pretrial services program, they will automatically languish in jail. The fact is, most people who are able to post a monetary bond for release do so within 24-48 hours. If they can't, either their bail is set high, their charge is one that prevents their release, they are truly indigent or perhaps their family/friends no longer trust them to abide by the law.

The private surety bail industry is proud of the role we play in the criminal justice system and the service we provide. If you agree that government should not encroach on private enterprise that already does a valuable service at no taxpayer expense, let your legislators know!

Support HB 445 and SB 782!

Mason-Dixon Poll: Florida Voters Oppose Use of Tax Dollars for Bail

2010-04-05T15:05:00.004-04:00

ALEC Calls on Florida Lawmakers to Pass Senate Bill 782 and House Bill 445 (Washington D.C.): For Immediate Release

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) today released the findings of a recent Mason-Dixon poll showing that Florida voters strongly favor enacting a statewide law that would limit the use of their tax dollars to paying only for the release of indigent defendants who have been charged with a non-violent crime.

Statewide, 71 percent supported limiting the use of tax dollars, while 22 percent were opposed and 7 percent were undecided.

Currently, the Florida Legislature is considering Senate Bill 782 by Senator John Thrasher (R-St. Augustine) and House Bill 445 by Representative Chris Dorworth (R-Lake Mary), pertaining to changing Florida Statute as it relates to the government-run pretrial release programs. SB 782 and HB 445 requires that the defendant meet certain specified criteria in order to be eligible for pretrial release; narrows who is eligible for taxpayer-funded pretrial release; and moves more criminal offenders to a private, regulated and licensed bail system. The bills would still allow for the continued use of pretrial release programs for non-violent, first-time, non-dangerous indigent defendants.

ALEC has made reforming government-run bail a priority and believes this legislation will benefit Floridians. Support for the measure has widened to Florida's voters as evidenced by the Mason-Dixon poll:

94 percent felt criminal defendants who have failed to appear in court on a previous offense should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars;
87 percent felt that if a criminal defendant can afford to pay their own bail for release from jail, they should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars
86 percent felt a criminal defendant that has been previously convicted of a violent crime should not be allowed to be released from jail using tax dollars, even if the court rules that they are indigent;
Only 15 percent of state voters were aware that 28 Florida counties allow criminals to be released from jail using taxpayer dollars instead of paying for their own release while they await trial; and
Support for the measure cuts across party lines with 65 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Independents favoring such a law.

ALEC's Public Safety Task Force Director Michael Hough said, "It is clear that taxpayers do not want to be left on the hook to pay the bill for releasing potentially dangerous criminals from jail. Pretrial release agencies should strictly serve the indigent, and commercial bail does a better job of protecting the public from dangerous criminals, while saving taxpayer dollars."

The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C. from March 23, 2010 through March 25, 2010, with a total of 625 registered Florida voters. The margin of error is no more than plus or minus four percentage points. The poll is available at:

http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/cied/Mason-Dixon_poll.pdf

Note: ALEC is the nation's largest non-partisan individual membership organization of state legislators.

###

Florida's Pretrial Services Programs: Understanding the Cost to Taxpayers

2010-04-01T12:51:00.006-04:00

Taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs expanded in Florida in the 70's and 80's when the state's jails and prisons were dangerously overcrowded, with the goal of facilitating the release of indigent defendants so they wouldn't languish in jail. Such is not the case today. Jail populations are generally under capacity in most Florida jails and crime is down, yet taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs today release defendants who are not indigent, have committed violent offenses and who often have lengthy criminal and driving offense histories. There is no consistency across the state regarding how such programs operate because they are governed by administrative orders issued by the chief judge of the circuit and not by specific legislative action.

Out of the 67 Florida counties, 28 counties have such programs and are funded from $77,000 to $5.2 million in taxpayer dollars. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), part of the Florida Legislature, was tasked with examing the efficiency and effectiveness of Florida's pretrial services programs with the passage of the Citizens' Right-to-Know Act in July 2008. In their latest report (10-08) issued in January 2010, OPPAGA noted that out of the 28 Florida taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs, only 24 programs responded to their legislative request for information. Of those programs that did report, they did so with varying degrees of thoroughness. Accurate reporting is mandated by the Florida Legislature yet four counties simply thumbed their noses at this requirement and didn't even bother to respond.

Hillsborough, Jackson, Monroe and Seminole Counties provided no information to OPPAGA in order to determine if their taxpayer-funded programs were meeting best practices, ensuring defendants appeared in court and were not rearrested. Of the programs that did respond, half of them did not report data on these key outcomes. As stated by OPPAGA, "the programs' failure to report outcome data limited our ability to determine the statewide percentage of defendants served by the programs and who violated the terms of their release."

So what can we determine from the information that was provided?

From the 24 taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs that provided data, the following statistics provide key information on defendants interviewed and released and what it cost the taxpayer:

Defendants interviewed for non-secure pretrial services release: 140,411
Defendants declared indigent by the court release: 57,514
Defendants recommended for non-secure pretrial services release: 19,181
Defendants granted non-secure pretrial services release: 17,586

The reporting counties are allocated $26,582,463 of tax dollars to fund their programs! The average cost to the taxpayer to fund the release of a defendant in Florida prior to trial under a pretrial services program equates to $1,511.56 per defendant!

Now let's contrast the cost to the taxpayer for a defendant to be released on a bail bond:

Average cost of bail in Florida: $2,000
Cost to the defendant for release on bail (minimum $100 or 10 percent of the full amount of the bond): $200
Cost to the taxpayer for release on bail: $0

Critics of the private surety bail industry say the only thing a bail bond does is ensure appearance. True, the cornerstone of a bail agent's responsibility is to make sure a defendant released on bail does attend all court appearances - if not, that bail agent will have to pay the full amount of the bond back to the court. However, bail agents also determine risk and obtain detailed information on all defendants they release on bail - family, friends, job, residency, social hobbies, social ties etc. - to make sure they can find that defendant at any given time. And, they often will require a defendant to check-in regularly with them or make visits to the defendant as well. But most importantly, the bail agent integrates a defendant's family and/or friends into the bail contract to help enforce conditions of release and as an added layer of accountability. All of these efforts increase public safety!

But let's talk for a minute about the failure to appear and re-arrest rates of defendants released through Florida's pretrial services programs. Of the 17,586 non-secure releases through Florida's programs, 5,402 defendants failed to appear for court or were rearrested for a new crime while under pretrial services release. At a cost of $1,511.56 per release for these 5,402 defendants, the taxpayer had a direct LOSS of $8,165,447 out of the initial $26+ million investment. We are not saying defendants released on bail don't ever fail to appear or are not rearrested for a new crime - the difference is, it costs the taxpayer nothing when this happens as the bail agent is financially and physically responsible for that defendant!

There is an old saying in the criminal justice arena regarding the type of release from jail:

"If a defendant skips on bond they know they have in effect stolen the bail agent's money and the agent has a personal incentive to bring the defendant back to court to recover their money. You can cut off your GPS monitor, cheat on your drug test or lie to your officer, but your bail agent will come and get you."

As taxpayers, we have the responsibility to let our legislative bodies know how we feel our limited tax dollars should be spent. In today's economic environment, do you want your tax dollars spent by undefined and largely unregulated pretrial services programs who have no common consistency whatsoever, or through a highly regulated and licensed private surety bail industry that costs the taxpayer nothing to release and supervise defendants from jail pending the closure of their case?

Public policy affects public safety!

The Importance of Bail vs. Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Release

2010-03-19T11:37:00.005-04:00

Why is bail important in the criminal justice system?

Bail, provided by a licensed surety agent, is an insurance contract that guarantees the appearance of a defendant in court. An estimated 30 percent of defendants released on taxpayer-funded pretrial release remain at large after one year from failing to appear for court. The percentage for bail? 19 percent! Private surety bail has the lowest failure to appear and fugitive rates.

Bail is guaranteed by the 8th and 14th admendments in the United States Constitution: many defendnant's don't have the full amount of the bond to post in order to be released from jail so they borrow usually 10 perent of the face value of the bond from a bail agent to get out of jail, much like you pay for any other insurance policy. The bail agent then accepts financial and physical responsibility for that defendant.

Bail relieves jail overcrowding: by facilitating the release of defendants who can afford to pay a bond, private surety bail helps take away the burden of jail overcrowding and paves the way for a taxpayer-funded pretrial release program to focus on indigent defendants charged with non-violent crimes to be released. After all, these are the very people who need help the most - not those who can pay for their own way out of jail.

Bail is privately-funded and costs the taxpayer nothing: your critical tax dollars can then be use for other important services and programs.

Bail agents are accountable financially and physcially for defendants: bail agents are financially responsible for defendants they release on bail. If a defendant fails to appear for court the bail agent must either produce the defendant or pay the full amount of the bond to the court.

Bail agents pay all costs of extradition for defendants who fail to appear and are re-arrested: under a pretrial release program more of your tax dollars are used to try and apprehend criminals who fail to appear.

Bail agents invest and instill financial incentives by integrating family and friends as guarantors of the bond. Defendants are held accountable through their contract with the bail agent.

Bail reduces county costs.

Bail agents and the insurance company they represent are accountable to the court.

Promoting public safety . . . reinforcing accountability!

Pretrial Release: Florida House Bill 445 Passes Committee Unanimously

2010-03-11T11:50:00.005-05:00

Florida House Bill 445, sponsored by Representative Chris Dorworth, passed the Public Safety & Domestic Security Policy Committee by unanimous vote on Tuesday, March 9, 2010! Chaired by Representative Kevin Ambler, the committee acknowledged the benefits of the bill, which would limit taxpayer-funded pretrial release to the indigent who are not charged with a violent offense. The bill also limits eligibility to anyone who has failed to appear in the past or has been convicted of a violent crime. The bill is a win-win for the taxpayers and the indigent, who often are the ones passed over by pretrial services programs while they release other defendants who are able to post a bond.

A handful of people spoke against the bill claiming the mentally ill or poor people would remain in jail. It is obvious they didn't read the bill as poor people are the ones the bill would help and the judge still has full judicial discretion to release anyone who doesn't qualify for release under the bill to be released on their own recognizance and ordered into mental health treatment, drug treatment or other special programs. GPS monitoring and drug testing can also be ordered and accessed by private providers in the community.

Commissioner Bill Proctor from Leon County, who created the county's pretrial release program, was one of the individuals against the bill. If he had done his homework, he would have realized the benefits of the bill to the indigent as well as the savings taxpayers would enjoy by not having to spend more tax dollars to find people who fail to appear for court when released by pretrial services. He claimed there were no statistics that show any difference in failure to appear rates for release on bond or pretrial services; he must not have read the two dozen national studies that have been conducted that show release on a bail bond has the lowest failure to appear rate than any other form of release!

Even the Tallahassee Democrat saw the light when they reported that Proctor, "protested Tuesday against a plan to forbid release of dangerous suspects and know bail jumpers without posting bail." What is relevant to this whole argument is the fact that public safety will be increased while the burden on taxpayers will be decreased.

The bill next goes before the Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Committee the week of March 22, 2010. If you care about your safety and the wise use of your tax dollars, communicate with your Representatives and Senators and let them know you support this important bill!

Second Whistle Blower Speaks Out on Pretrial Services

2010-03-03T11:06:00.007-05:00

Virginia is trying to get similar legislation passed as Florida is that would limit pretrial services to the indigent, nonviolent and allow the private surety industry to assist those defendants that can afford to post their own bail and based on their offense.

One whistle blower, Erika Matthews, a former pretrial services investigator for a pretrial services program in Virginia, has already come forward and exposed pretrial services for their true tactics and now a second whistle blower, Steve Carneal, a senior probation officer with Culpeper Criminal Justice Services in Virginia, has also come forward in support of House Bill 728 to limit pretrial services to the indigent and nonviolent. Read his message below that was sent to VA legislative committee members determining passage of the bill:

"To Those Who Serve This Great Commonwealth: Vote Yes to HB 728:

OK, I know many of my colleagues in the community corrections/pretrial may be contacting you in opposition to this bill. This is because their job and mine could be at stake if numbers are reduced. As a taxpayer, I believe this is the wrong approach to how government should operate. This bill expands jobs for bondsmen, increasing their pay which could stimulate the economy and it is better to expand private businesses instead of government in these tough economic times. That is why I believe this bill is a good bill.

I do not believe people should stay in jail if they truly cannot afford it, but there has to be a way to prove this. Many people do not have jobs but many also choose not to look. I have a personal knowledge of this as many of my colleagues do as well.

Due to the recent budget restraints my life has already been affected by the reduction of funding. My salary has been frozen for three years, insurance had increased, forcing me to reduce that benefit to pay more out of pocket and stop me from going to the doctor unless near death, and this year we are facing pay cuts and VRS cuts to offset skyrocketing government spending. I am set to lose three good friends that are in county positions in Culpeper alone. My wife is a school teacher - enough said there.

So with all I have at stake you would think with all this I would be asking for more funding for my program and for pretrial, but again, because my job or my family's jobs are at stake is not a good reason to expand government if it is not needed. Many Community Corrections and pretrial programs have slightly inflated numbers due to taking or holding cases that quite honestly should not be on probation. An example would be a no valid operator's license or fail to pay fines and costs. Some programs have become the dumping grounds for the courts as a baby-sitting or collection agency instead of trying to effectively facilitate change in their lives. This is not my idea of probation and pretrial and I do not believe that was the intention lawmakers had when drafted the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act Grant.

There is a shift in ideology to using more evidence-based practices in probation and pretrial services such as motivational interviewing techniques to help with facilitating this change, and preliminary data looks good, but Directors have to look at ways to cut numbers from the court to really make a difference, and I believe reducing numbers overall will make us more effective. Directors have become passive with judges because referrals are steady, but our goal is reducing recidivism not kingdom building. It they don't, then we are throwing money at a problem with no real solution.

Now is the perfect time to make cuts that have been needed for many years but lawmakers on both sides of the fence (Republicans and Democrats) are fearful to make. We cannot be lie California and many other states that cannot make budget and are so far behind the eight ball that may never recover. It is time to make cuts and turn more control back over to private business.

Again, I am not against pretrial but I can personally tell you too many people are on pretrial that can afford to pay for the services that are provided at taxpayers' expense. It is time to take in the belt. My family has and will continue to make cuts in our lifestyle yet serve the Commonwealth and its' citizens faithfully even if no longer within the realms of government.

I thank each of you for your service and I pray for each of you to seek God's wisdom on how to proceed in this and many other matter concerning this great Commonwealth. I ask you to vote yes to HB 728 to help ease the taxpayers' burden in this tough economic time. I look forward to hearing how you vote on this bill."

Pretrial Release Facts - National Public Radio

2010-03-01T16:36:00.007-05:00

National Public Radio recently did a three-part series on pretrial release in jails across the country; so many of the points in the series were completely nonfactual, that the private surety bail industry needed to set the record straight and let the taxpayers know the truth. From the series, it was clear that NPR already had a bias toward the continuation of taxpayer-funded pretrial services/release programs.

Mr. Dennis Bartlett, Executive Director of the American Bail Association and one of the foremost experts on bail and pretrial services, recently wrote an article to refute facts highlighted in the NPR series:

"NPR mentioned in their series that about 500,000 inmates are languishing in jails for want of bail. A quick check of the data published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) shows that indeed, there are about 500,000 non-convicted defendants held in the nation's jails. They constitute about 63 percent of the total jail population of about 780,000 inmates.

The NPR story is fallacious in that it gives the impression of a great mass of unfortunates stuck in jail, like some medieval black hole in Calcutta. This is far from the case. The cohort of 500,000 non-convicted defendants is not static. Over a year almost the entire cohort turns over by people coming into the system on new arrests and people exiting on bail, going back to freedom after case closure or getting on the Department of Corrections bus to head for the penitentiary after conviction.

Some will not get out on bail. Why? Some further facts which are all supported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Half of those arrested were already on probation, out on bond or parolees
Seven-out-of-ten arrested had prior convictions
Four-out-of-ten had served three or more sentences
Over 60 percent were on regular drug usage, 40 percent were intoxicated at the time of the offense and 42 percent were current enrollees in a substance abuse program
Jails are also the largest repository for the mentally ill

Recently the Pretrial Justice Institute was granted a $250,000 award by the Public Welfare Foundation to justify the expansion of pretrial services by means of an educational program aimed at state lawmakers to handle the horde of 500,000 inmates stuck in jail without bail. Initially at least, and in light of the BJS figures above, it appears that the grounds for getting this grant are spurious."

Thanks Dennis for your ongoing contributions to the private surety bail industry!

More corrections regarding the NPR series to come . . .

Pretrial Release Bills

2010-02-19T11:02:00.003-05:00

Florida Senator John Thrasher and Representative Chris Dorworth are sponsoring bills for the 2010 legislative session that would streamline the types of people that could be released under a taxpayer-funded pretrial services/release program. Of course, this has caused a massive panic of pretrial services/release programs across Florida fearing they may loose their taxpayer-funded jobs!

Other states across the country are sponsoring similar legislation and some have even been successful getting such legislation passed, which also has led to similar uproars from pretrial services/release programs. So upset are they that the private surety bail industry has finally begun to show they type of lies and rhetoric these programs tell legislators, funders and the public, that they have launched a massive public relations effort to discredit us - but it is beginning to backfire on them!

The benefits of the Florida pretrial detention and release bills limiting release into a taxpayer-funded pretrial services/release program are many and take into account the wise use of taxpayer dollars and public safety:

The bills enhance public safety by targeting defendants who are charged with a misdemeanor offense or felony offense, which not dangerous in nature, for release
Defendants who have failed to appear for a court appearence previously would not be eligible for release due to their lack of accountability for appearing in court for past crimes
Defendants who are already on probation for a prior offense or have committed a new offense would also not be eligible for release
The "public option" for release for dangerous criminals and those with lengthy criminal histories would be eliminated
Defendants with prior convictions for violent offenses would not be eligible for release
The bills would require that those defendants who can afford to pay for their release do so and would require programs to target truly indigent defendants
The bills do not take away judicial discretion to release a defendant on non-monetary means if they do not qualify for a pretrial services/release program - the judge can still release a defendant on their own recognizance if appropriate
The bills prohibit the collection of any fees for release or supervision

Pretrial services/release programs continually try to portray bail agents as greedy and who are only out to make a profit off the unfortunate! Bail agents do not determine who gets out of jail and who doesn't. The decision as to whether or not a defendant is released and under what mechanism lies directly with the court. Unacceptable risk is the sole reason a bail agent would not bond a defendant out of jail.

The fact that pretrial services/release programs are complaining that these bills PROHIBIT them from collecting fees shows that they really don't care about non-monetary release or how tax dollars are spent! Individuals that comprise the private surety bail industry are all taxpayers too and we demand that our money be spend wisely and effectively!

So should all of you. Public policy affects public safety!

Dirty Tricks and Lies by Pretrial Services Programs

2010-02-05T10:46:00.003-05:00

Virginians for the Preservation of Bail are also fighting to get legislation passed that would hold pretrial services programs more accountable for taxpayer dollars by making sure a defendant is indigent to be eligible for release. Accredited and other nationwide insurance companies underwriting bail is behind this effort 100 percent.

Why?

Because the wise use of taxpayer funds and public safety should always be a shared goal. Why should a defendant charged with a serious crime and/or who has a lengthy criminal history just be allowed to walk out of jail for free with limited supervision? Is that what you want as a taxpayer?

The Virginians for the Preservation of Bail have professional legislative consultants working beside them because they believe in the private surety bail industry's message of accountability and using taxpayer funds wisely. These legislative consultants are not new to the area of fighting to get legislation passed for their clients. But the tactics and lies of pretrial services "advocates" have opened their eyes in many ways. Below is a direct quote from the chief legislative consultant regarding the environment in Virginia:

"Let me be clear. I have worked on political issues before, many of them controversial. I have never seen a public group as quick to lie, cheat and engage in unethical behavior as quickly or as readily as the pretrial activists. I am disgusted by their attempts and we will not stop until this legislation becomes law. We will not back down in the face of deceit and dirty tricks."

You be the judge. Do you want transparency and accountability, which leads to better public safety decisions, or do you want deceit and dirty tricks?

Public policy affects public safety!

Nationwide Legislative Initiatives Regarding Pretrial Services/Release

2010-02-04T14:52:00.005-05:00

Nationwide, the private surety bail industry is fighting to promote legislation that would protect the further misuse of taxpayer funds by pretrial services/release programs and mandate that they adhere to their original mission of helping indigent defendants charged with first-time and/or non-violent offenses to be released from jail pending the disposition of their case. The private surety bail industry has a proven track record of providing the most effective and efficient means of pretrial release while saving taxpayers millions of dollars!

Bail agents are financially and physically responsible for defendants they release on bail; unacceptable risk is the only reason a bail agent wouldn't bond a defendant out of jail. If a defendant has no one in the community or family members willing to stand behind him financially to get out of jail, it speaks volumes regarding the accountability of that defendant. Despite the claim of pretrial services/release programs that defendants languish in jail simply because they can't afford a monetary bond, it is not true. Few defendants remain in jail simply because they can't afford ten percent of the bond, which in many cases is anywhere from a $100 to $500 depending on their offense.

Pretrial services/release programs don't want anyone to have to post a monetary bond to get out of jail - despite whatever criminal act they may have committed or whatever financial resources they may have. Where is the accountability in that? It seems to only reward criminal behavior because the defendant knows despite what crime he commits, he/she would be able to walk out of jail free and no one will be tracking them. If they fail to appear, again, no one will make a great effort to find them because law enforcement is already overburdened fighting and/or preventing other crimes. Your tax dollars just keep on being siphoned by the system.

Let's set the record straight: bail agents do not determine who gets out of jail and who doesn't. The court surrenders no release power to a bail agent. The decision as to whether a defendant is released and under what mechanism lies directly with the court. The relationship of the bail agent with the court is a contractual one for the purpose of ensuring the defendant appears in court. As an added benefit, the bail agent also helps to enhance public safety because he/she takes detailed information on the defendant, their family, friends, place of employment, residency, hobbies, social habits and even adds conditions to the bond contract such as curfews. And, collateral may be secured by the defendant's family as an added layer of accountability. Afterall, would you want to make your Mom or Dad, Grandparents or siblings lose something of value simply because you didn't want to show up for court one day? Do you think a pretrial services/release program integrates this type of system of care into their release contract? Think again!

Despite all of the levels of physical and financial accountability the private surety bail industry provides, pretrial services/release programs continue to refer to our industry as "greedy bondsmen" who only are in it for a profit. What is the motivation of pretrial services/release programs? Many such programs have grown into hugh bureaucratic programs that receive millions of taxpayer dollars in essence to compete with private enterprise. They will fight tooth and nail before they have to lose any staff or have their program cut in anyway - and you pay for it.

If there are so many people in jail who can't afford to pay a monetary bond and are only charged with minor crimes, then such programs should focus their attention on that population and let the private surety bail industry assist the rest. It should be a win-win situation right? Then why are such programs continuing to attack our industry instead of taking care of the indigent citizens using your tax dollars wisely?

Despite the contention that some bonds are too low and not worth the trouble to write, in actuality, there is no bond too low that a bail agent will not write, as such bonds may lead to larger bonds in the future, as is usually the case. Private surety bail also helps the poor through no interest, easy credit terms. And families appreciate that and take advantage of it. Bail agents do not make money off of the misfortunes of others. The private surety bail industry is like many other industries in that it provides a service and if accepted, the taxpayer should not be expected to pay for it.

The private surety bail industry and pretrial services/release programs share much of the same goals. We both want defendants who pose no threat to the public, are not flight risks and who have not committed a serious crime, to be released from jail. The manner of release however is critcal to ensure public safety and the wise use of taxpayer funds. This should continue to be a shared goal.

Public policy affects public safety.

January 2010 Report Card of Florida's Pretrial Services/Release Programs

2010-02-01T14:44:00.010-05:00

The Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA) released it's second year report in January 2010 regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of Florida's pretrial services/release programs. Florida has 28 such programs, which are all funded with our tax dollars and run by either the Sheriff or Board of County Commissioners. Yet only 26 programs responded to OPPAGA's request for information - two programs simply ignored the request!

With the passage of the Citizens' Right-to-Know-Act in July 2008, all pretrial services/release programs are required to produce a weekly register detailing information on defendants released through their program, along with an annual report. OPPAGA is charged with monitoring adherence to this legislation and conducting an annual review. Only 24 of the 28 pretrial services/release programs are adhering to the law in terms of reporting requirements, and of those, there is no consistency in how they report their data and outcomes as quoted by OPPAGA:

"Many programs' annual reports do not contain outcome data as required by statute. Further, the programs that have reported this data used different methods to compute those outcomes. As a result, statewide data are not available to compare outcomes across programs or to compare defendants in these programs to those released on bond or on their own recognizance."

Yet OPPAGA is suggesting to the Florida Legislature that they consider streamlining some of the reporting requirements to improve clarity and reduce administrative "burdens" on pretrial services/release programs! And, pretrial services/release programs don't want to have to report on a weekly basis; they are fighting to only have to report on a monthly basis. If such programs don't adhere to reporting requirements as outlined by statute now, and OPPAGA has no authority to sanction them, what do you think will happen if reporting criteria is further streamlined and lengthier time frames are issued for reporting? The public will further remain in the dark!

Other interesting facts highlighted by OPPAGA:

Nature of criminal charges: OPPAGA states that most pretrial services/release programs restrict eligibility to defendants with less serious criminal charges.

This was proven to not be the case in Orange County when defendants charged with serious offenses, many of whom had lengthy criminal/driving offense histories, were routinely being released through the program without ever seeing a Judge. The private surety bail industry was instrumental in getting this release mechanism revoked. Only a thorough review of the release registries will show if this is happening in other programs statewide, which OPPAGA never reviews.

As stated in the OPPAGA report, "Judges have broad discretion to place defendants in a pretrial services/release program, including those with more serious charges and criminal histories. Therefore, some defendants with violent offense histories or charges, such as aggravated assault and battery, have been placed into pretrial services/release programs. As a result, these programs serve defendants with varying levels of risk to public safety."

In Orange County, even though release by jail staff was revoked, Judges are now releasing defendants charged with domestic violence, battery, burglary, DUI, petit theft, no valid driver's license, possession of drug paraphernalia and cannabis, controlled substances, trespass and aggravated battery on a pregnant person into the pretrial services/release program. In such releases, a bond should be added as a condition of release as an added layer of accountability!

Missed court appearances and re-arrests: OPPAGA states that pretrial services/release programs are required to report the name and case number of defendants granted non-secured release who failed to appear for a schedule court appearance, were issued a warrant for failing to appear or were arrested for any offense while in the program. Such outcomes are important public safety indicators that can be used to analyze the effectiveness of pretrial services/release programs.

However, about half of Florida's pretrial services/release programs did not report data on these outcomes! Programs reported various reasons for not reporting these data, such as their information systems did not capture the information or that they did not have enough time and resources to collect the data. Then how do you know if you are effective in your release mechanism and its effect on public safety?

OPPAGA stated, "The programs' failure to report outcome data limited our ability to determine the statewide percentage of defendants served by the programs that violated the terms of their condition. These reported outcomes should be interpreted with caution due to the large number of programs that failed to report data and differences among the programs in how they classified failure to appear rates. Further, some programs counted any missed court appearance as a failure to appear while others did not count a missed court appearance as a failure to appear until the court issued a bench warrant. Some programs computed failure to appear rates as the total number of scheduled court appearances divided by the total number of missed court appearances while others computed this rate by dividing the total number of defendants by the number who missed at least one court appearance."

Have pretrial services/release programs implemented best practices to ensure appearance in court and no new arrests: OPPAGA identified five nationally recognized best practices for supervising defendants and reporting information to the courts: provide risk information, effectively supervise defendants, remind defendants of their court dates, inform the court of violations and establish and report performance measures.

The use of a formal risk assessment is an important tool to determine a defendant's appropriateness and eligibility for a pretrial services/release program. Yet according to a 2009 national survey by the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), 48 percent of programs have never validated their risk assessment tool, thus they are unable to provide the court with meaningful information on a defendant. The PJI survey showed that only 87 percent of programs check state criminal history records, 86 percent check both the National Crime Information Center and local criminal histories and only 40 percent review motor vehicle records.

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) both have standards regarding providing, "appropriate and effective supervision for all persons released prior to adjudication of their case." Yet again, the PJI in their most recent 2009 national survey of pretrial services/release programs indicated that the most common supervision options reported are to have defendants check-in by telephone or in person. Many programs in Florida allow defendants to call in to an automated telephone answering system as their preferred method of supervision! No field visits to a defendant's home or work site, no integration of family into the pretrial release contract and limited face-to-face contact.

Both NAPSA and the ABA make it clear that it is the responsibility of a pretrial services/release program to remind defendants of their court date. Most programs review the court date with defendants after the first appearance and during supervision contacts or call or write the defendant with a reminder date. About five percent use an automated dialing system and 17 percent use automatically generated reminder letters. However, according to the 2009 nationwide PJI survey, ten percent of programs have no court reminder procedures; 17 percent of probation-based, 12 percent of jail-based, ten percent of court-based and five percent of nonprofit-based programs have no court date reminder procedures.

Failure to appear for court is a common violation among pretrial release defendants. According to NAPSA standards, pretrial services/release programs should facilitate the return to court of defendants who fail to appear for their scheduled court date. Yet again according to the 2009 nationwide PJI survey, only 84 percent of current programs take some action in following up with defendants who have failed to appear and the most common action is to call the defendant and urge a voluntary return to court in 62 percent of the cases!

Performance measures such as calculating the failure to appear and re-arrest rates of defendants are key factors in determining the risk level and appropriateness for a pretrial services/release program. Defendants who fail to appear cause significant costs to the criminal justice system and new crimes committed by pretrial defendants affect public safety. However, the nationwide PJI survey found that only 68 percent of pretrial services/release programs calculate the failure to appear rate and only 37 percent calculate the re-arrest rate. The PJI calls such reporting, "discouraging."

Given all of this information, OPPAGA is still recommending the following to the Florida Legislature:

Require programs to report data on a monthly instead of a weekly basis;
Clarify requirements to assist in the consistent interpretation and application of the law; and
Modify or eliminate reporting requirements that do not directly relate to program effectiveness or cost-efficiency.

The private surety bail industry contends that all of the current reporting requirements directly relate to program effectiveness and cost-efficiency of Florida's pretrial services/release programs. The agency charged with evaluating such effectiveness has clearly stated that many programs are already failing in their reporting requirements to the point that such programs' reported outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

Please stand behind the private surety bail industry and demand that your valuable tax dollars be spent wisely and appropriately! The public should have a right to know all reported outcomes of defendants released through a pretrial services/release program and to demand that such programs not become a, "criminal welfare system!"

Public policy affects public safety!

Pretrial Release: Is this Issue on the Radar for Candidates for Orange County Mayor?

2010-01-11T14:21:00.004-05:00

Pretrial services/release programs are facing increased scrutiny across the nation for their liberal release procedures and minimal supervision practices. In today's tough economic environment, many government-funded programs and services are being cut, including public safety. Elected officials must look closely at how limited tax dollars are spent, while still balancing the budget.

So why are county and state governments across the country continuing to spend millions of tax dollars on pretrial services/release programs to release and "supervise" criminal defendants when the private sector does so for free and much more effectively? Why for example is the National Association of Counties, a membership organization whose primary members are counties that use tax dollars to pay a membership fee, advocating for increased use of taxpayer funds to establish, run and manage pretrial services/release programs locally?

In Orange County, Florida, the private surety bail industry has been instrumental in bringing to light the kinds of releases happening through the jail's pretrial services/release program, which is funded at $1.7M. Using the jail's own information required through the Citizens' Right-to-Know Act, the industry was able to prove that defendants charged with serious offenses, who had lenghthy prior criminal and/or driving offense histories, failures to appear and violations of probation, were routinely being released through the program - all without ever seeing a Judge. After such releases were made public to the citizens and a legal challenge was filed with the 5th District Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge and other elected officials suddenly decided to change the release process, which now requires a Judge's order for release through the pretrial services/release program.

A victory for the industry for sure, yet the same level of funding is still in place even though jail staff are supervising many less defendants than previously. And a new disturbing trend is taking place: the Initial Appearance Judges are now ordering more defendants into the program without any financial conditions and continued limited supervision. Defendants are being released for domestic violence, petit theft, burglary of a conveyance, driving with license suspended/revoked, no valid driver's license, possession cannabis and drug paraphernalia, possession of oxycodone, battery, DUI, trespassing after warning, criminal mischief and aggravated battery on a pregnant person! All released free of charge on your tax dollars!

Seven candidates are running for Orange County Mayor, three of which are incumbents: Commissioners Mildred Fernandez, Linda Stewart and Bill Segal. The three incumbents are thoroughly versed in the issues regarding the private surety bail industry's concerns regarding the amount of taxpayer money going to run a huge bureacratic program and the effect on public safety.

Pretrial services/release programs have no constituency to back their cause except their own narrow interests - that of maintaining the status quo and their government funding. Florida legislation is being proposed that would require more accountability from these programs; they are fighting it because they are fearful of further transparency that may ultimately result in less taxpayer funding.

The candidates for Orange County Mayor should take note that their constituents do not support such programs. In response to a mailer sent to thousands of households regarding the types of releases occurring through Orange County's pretrial services/release program, citizens emphatically insisted that they did not want their tax dollars spent to reward criminal behavior! Counties are not required to establish and/or run a pretrial services/release program; if Judges want to release defendants with no monetary conditions, they have discretion to do so already - it's called release on recognizance. The only function county or state governments should consider funding regarding pretrial services is to provide enough adequate staff to perform the investigatory function into a defendant's background for a meaningful first appearance session so that a Judge can make an informed release decision. This one critical function would save significant tax dollars by eliminating the remaining unnecessary functions of pretrial services/release programs.

If the candidates for Orange County Mayor care about how your tax dollars are spent in the future, they should listen to your concerns and make the issue of pretrial services/release programs a part of their platform and lobby for greater accountability and transparency.

Pretrial Release Programs: Transparency or Concealment?

2010-01-08T14:01:00.004-05:00

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies and the Pretrial Justice Institute have been on a crusade to change the reporting requirements for the Citizens' Right-to-Know legislation in Florida. This very valuable piece of legislation ensures transparency for pretrial services/release programs that use your tax dollars to release and minimally supervise criminal defendants. The legislation in Florida was implemented in 2008 in an effort to document the effectiveness and efficiencey of such programs. It has been a very effective tool for investigating the types of defendants being released into pretrial services/release programs across the state. The current legislation requires programs to provide a weekly register of information on the types of defendants they release, to include the criminal/social history, failures to appear, violations of probation, indigency status and other key information. There are only eleven data requirements to report on and yet national pretrial services advocacy groups and programs are complaining that that is just too much work to produce for the public.

Programs claim thay already produce the same information for their internal stakeholders and the legislation only causes duplication of efforts. But what about the public's right to such information. If we wanted to see jail statistics and demographis, such as what the current legislation requires, a public records request would have to be made, the programs could take weeks to produce it and you would then be stuck with the price tag for information you probably couldn't decipher. As it is, there are no sanctions to programs who fail to report all of the data requirements.

The majority of jails currently have expert statisticians and data reporting systems that can run reports on all manner of data such as: average length of stay, average daily population, modeling forcasts, budget forecasts, number of misdemeanor and felony defendants on any given day, types of criminal charges, failures to appear, violations of probation, open charges, prior violent offenses or convictions, indigency status and the like. So why is the requirement to report much less data on a weekly register so time consuming and expensive. A simple template could be designed for reporting required data if more detailed information can be reported at the click of a finger. Accurately reporting on the Citizens' Right-to-Know criteria is a key element to understanding release mechanisms and appropriate resources should be allocated to the task.

New Florida legislation is being proposed by the private surety bail industry that would force pretrial services/release programs to adhere to reporting requirements they have tried to skirt. Senate bill 782 is sponsored by Senator Thrasher and House bill 445 is sponsored by Representative Dorworth. We commend both of these legislators for helping to ensure transparency and accountability of pretrial services/release programs in Florida. Both bills contain specific eligilibilty requirements for release under the program, requires staff to certify to the court a defendant's eligibility for the program and prohibits the collection of fees from defendants.

A main mantra of pretrial services/release programs is that they assist indigent defendants to be released from jail who would otherwise languish in jail just because they couldn't afford a monetary bond. After all, Florida Statutes state that there should be a presumption in favor of non-monetary release. Yet pretrial services/release programs are in an uproar because the new legislation would prevent them from assessing fees. Sounds like the double standard that it is.

Florida's pretrial services/release programs have been working with the Pretrial Justice Institute and the National Assocation of Counties to try to get the reporting requirements for the current Citizens' Right-to-Know legislation minimized. The initial goal was to change the weekly reporting requirements to monthly reporting requirements. Suddenly these efforts were, "suspended," when learning of the new proposed legislation that would ultimately tighten up the eligibility requirements for defendants. However in reality, the proposed legislation doesn't add any extra burden to what existing programs already do. There are no additional investigatory requirements either and programs per Florida Statute, must already certify to the court it has determined eligibility for release under the program.

So what is all the fuss about?

Pretrial services/release programs are self-serving in their efforts to continue to use our tax dollars to support a hugh bureaucratic system that is better done by the private sector. They don't want transparency or anyone butting into their programs. Judges want such programs because it gives them an easy release mechanism and puts the burden on the program for ensuring they have done a thorough investigation. If something goes wrong, each blames the other party!

Private surety bail is simple: bail agents are solely responsible for defendants they release on bail and if that defendant fails to appear for court, the bail agent pays the full amount of the bond to the court and takes the taxpayer out of the equation.

A pretrial services/release program nor a bail agent can ensure that a defendant will not commit another crime while out on release . . . but, you can trust that the bail agent has a much better handle on the defendant's whereabouts and circumstances rather than a pretrial services officer who never leaves their station or makes any field visits regarding the defendant.

You be the judge: do you prefer transparency in how your tax dollars are spent to release and supervise criminal defendants or do you want concealment of those facts?

Failing to Appear: Pretrial Release vs. Private Surety Bail

2010-01-05T15:45:00.002-05:00

An Accredited North Carolina bail agent recently shared a story with us regarding a defendant he had bonded out and then who had failed to appear for court. This defendant was a well-known career criminal who this bail agent was very familiar with. As should always be the case, this agent did his job well by making sure he had detailed information on the defendant, his family, friends, place of employment, hobbies and popular hangout spots, just in the event he needed to find the defendant at any given time.

Turns out the defendant did fail to appear for a court proceeding and the bail agent was issued a forfeiture by the court, which meant he had to pay the full amount of the bond back to the court. He had 150 days to find the defendant before a final judgment was issued and the bail agent lost the opportunity to recover any amount of the bond already paid. An arrest warrant was issued for the defendant.

However, the bail agent wanted to prove a point regarding the different tools and methods bail agents use vs. law enforcement to find fugitive defendants who fail to appear. It is a well known fact among law enforcement agencies, which are already overtaxed fighting and/or preventing crime, that finding defendants who fail to appear is a low priority. Bail agents however are financially and physically responsible for defendants they release on bond and have an inherent interest to find a defendant and find them as quickly as possible.

In order to make a strong statement regarding the difference in fugitive recovery for a bail agent vs. law enforcement, the North Carolina bail agent let the forfeiture go into final judgement after having given law enforcement 150 days to find the defendant, arrest him and take him back to court. Law enforcement never did find the defendant during the full 150 days. The day after the forfeiture went into judgment, the bail agent, based on his detailed knowedge of the defendant, located, arrested and took the defendant back to jail. How long do you think this took? One hour.

The main message is this: a licensed bail agent was able to find the defendant in one hour vs. five months allotted for law enforcement and used no taxpayer funds whatsoever. Law enforcement should not be straddled with having to find defendants who fail to appear, but should be focused on keeping our communites safe. Law enforcement officials know the beneftis that bail agents provide and often work closely with them to find and secure dangerous criminals who are out on bond.

However, if this particular defendant had been released through a taxpayer-funded pretrial services/release program, he would probably still be roaming the streets free to commit additional crimes. Such programs offer limited face-to-face contact with defendants and supervision is often relegated to calling in to an automated telephone system. Pretrial services/release programs never have interaction with a defendant's family or friends or step out of the office to do any field visits.

Yet in these tough economic times, county and state governments continue to allocate millions of taxpayer funds to run hugh bureaucratic pretrial services/release programs instead of relying on the private surety bail industry, which has been proven to be the most effective and efficient method of pretrial release. Such programs should focus on doing a thorough investigation into a defendant's criminal and social background so that a judge can make a meaningful release decision at a first appearance session. If a judge chooses to release a defendant into a pretrial services/release program, such decisions should be limited to defendants charged with first-time, non-violent offenses.

A nationwide effort is underway by the private surety bail industry to expose pretrial services/release programs for what they really are: a taxpayer-funded criminal welfare release system! Public safety is not enhanced at all by such releases; but non-accountability for the actions of criminals is.

Speak out to your elected officials and let then know you will not stand to have your tax dollars spent so irresponsibly. To learn more about our efforts, post your questions on our blog.

Public policy affects public safety.