How Many Free Pretrial Releases in December?

The month of December 2009 was busy at the Orange County, Florida jail! Yet even as of today, the jail capacity sits at only 84.3 percent - way under population!

Over the month of December 2,414 individuals were arrested - many charged with multiple crimes. How many of these defendants were released free of charge through the jail's pretrial release program? I bet you a good number were.

Below is just a snapshot of the types and number of offenses committed:

• 109 arrests for failure to appear for a court proceeding
• 210 arrests for DUI (14 involving personal injury; 9 involving property damage; 16 with prior convictions; one driving with a minor; 10 with balances .15>; 4 with balances .20>)
• 188 arrests for domestic violence (12 involving hindering communication with law enforcement; 17 by strangulation; 7 against pregnant women)
• 13 arrests for dating violence
• 12 arrests for false imprisonment
• 9 arrests for violating a domestic violence injunction
• 7 arrests for aggravated assualt/domestic violence
• 5 arrests for stalking
• 5 arrests for child abuse
• 4 arrests for sexual battery (2 involving a child <12)
• 3 arrests for lewd/lascivious molestation
• 131 arrests for possession of cannabis (12 with intent to sell/deliver)
• 91 arrests for possession of cocaine (29 with intent to sell/deliver; 4 for trafficing)
• 108 arrests for possession of drug paraphernalia
• 2 arrests for herion
• 34 arrests for aggravated battery/assault (28 with a weapon)
• 29 arrests for felony or aggravated battery/assault with great bodily harm
• 7 arrests for felony battery
• 7 arrests for assault
• 90 arrests for battery
• 37 arrests for battery on law enforcement officer
• 159 arrests for driving with license suspended (30 suspended as habitual offenders; 9 with license suspended over 4 months)
• 76 arrests for driving with no valid driver's license
• 107 arrests for grand theft 3rd degree (28 involving a motor vehicle; 9 with a firearm)
• 101 arrests for petit theft (39 involving retail; 14 with $100 or more; 5 with prior convictions)
• 31 arrests for burglary to a conveyance (3 to an occupied conveyance)
• 42 arrests for burglary to a dwelling/structure (15 to an occupied dwelling/structure)
• 8 arrests for burglary with assault and battery
• 36 arrests for tresspassing (29 after a warning; 7 to structure/conveyance)
• 44 arrests for criminal mischief
• 16 arrests for loitering or prowling
• 31 arrests for robbery (17 with a firearm; 3 by sudden snatching)
• 32 arrests for carrying a concealed firearm/weapon (6 by a convicted felon)
• 1 arrest for carjacking with a firearm
• 4 arrests for prostitution
• 4 arrests for tampering with a witness

How safe do you feel? Would you prefer individuals who commit such crimes be held accountable for their crimes by having some skin in the game for their release? Or would you rather have their release method bankrolled by you and your tax dollars? How stringent do you feel supervision of such defendants should be?

If released under the jail's pretrial release program, supervision most often will come in the form of calling into an automated telephone system with no live person at the other end. The pretrial release officer doesn't meet the defendant's family or friends, visit their home or place of work or do much more than keep a paper file on a defendant's case until the case is over . . . then on to the next defendant! A bail agent on the other hand instills family and friends into the bail contract and may take additional collateral to make sure the defendant appears at all court hearings and stays out of trouble. Very few defendants remain in jail because they can't afford to post a bond. And lets face reality: if you have been in and out of the system yet you sit in jail because your family or friends will no longer bond you out, it must be for a good reason and maybe you deserve to be there!

Today, pretrial release programs function just like the private surety bail industry except the tax payers are paying for the system with little to no accountability for the defendant. What happened to the goal of working with truely indigent defendants who made an honest mistake that resulted in a first-time, non-violent offense? Why would Judges that you elect into office want to release a defendant into such system, particularly when a jail sits at far under capacity? Pretrial release programs have become a version of a government criminal welfare system and once created, will seldom go away!

Let's hope that the 2010 year will bring greater wisdom to our elected officials who approve of and establish such systems. Private enterprise is always better at doing a job than the government and particularly in the field of surety bail. Let your voices be heard!

Happy New Year and blessings for 2010!

Free Pretrial Release in Orange County, Florida

Individuals who commit crimes, both criminal and traffic offenses, have a choice in doing so and if caught, should be held accountable for those offenses. They should have something at stake when released from jail to make them feel pressured to attend their court appearances and resolve their case. Unfortunately, many individuals who commit crimes have been through the justice system several times and know how to work it to their advantage. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes; however, hopefully we will learn from those mistakes and not continue to perpetuate circumstances that get us into trouble.

Release from jail for committing a crime is a right. If you willfully break the law and put yourself and others at risk, you should not just get an easy way out of jail with the hope that you will return. Only individuals who are proven to be indigent and who have committed a non-violent, first-time offense should be given an opportunity to "get out of jail free." Afterall, your tax dollars pay for such release.

Over the course of six weeks (November 1, 2009 through December 5, 2009) 276 defendants were released on your tax dollars after committing a combined 300+ offenses. Of the 276 defendants, 191 were court-ordered to be supervised by the jail's pretrial release program, whereby most of the "supervised" defendants will simply call into an automated telephone answering system; 72 defendants were released on their own recognizance, which means they promise to return for all court hearings; and 13 defendants were released "administratively" by jail staff before the private surety bail industry was successful in getting such release revoked.

Below is a breakout of the offenses committed:

• 38 DUI's (2 with a balance greater than .20)
• 34 Battery/domestic violence
• 34 Possession of cannabis <20
• 28 Battery
• 21 Petit theft
• 21 Driving with no valid driver's license
• 21 Driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
• 18 Resisting law enforcement officer without violence
• 11 Trespass
• 9 Possession of controlled substance
• 9 Disorderly conduct/intoxication
• 6 Driving with license suspended
• 7 Driving with expired driver's license >4 months
• 5 Possessing/giving alcohol to person <21
• 4 Criminal mischief
• 3 Providing false ID to law enforcement
• 3 Unlawful use of driver's license
• 3 Possession of cocaine
• 2 Forgery/fraud
• 2 Tampering with witness to hinder communication
• 2 Obtaining medical drugs by fraud
• 2 Aggravated battery on a pregnant person
• 2 Destruction of evidence
• 2 Urinating/defecating in public
• 2 Trafficking in herion/controlled substance
• 2 Loitering or prowling
• 2 Driving with license revoked as a habitual offender
• 2 Grand theft
• 2 Burglary
• 2 Prostitution or lewdness
• 1 Obstruction by false information
• 1 Failure to obey lawful order
• 1 Driver's license suspension for financial responsibility
• 1 Defrauding an innkeeper (>$300)
• 1 Tag alteration
• 1 Obstruction by disguised person
• 1 Failure to leave property when ordered
• 1 Open container
• 1 Introduce contraband into county facility
• 1 Possession of narcotic equipment
• 1 Aggravated battery
• 1 Battery on law enforcement officer
• 1 Intentional threat to do harm
• 1 Reckless driving
• 1 Refusal to sign traffic infraction

Many more individuals have been released since on your tax dollars and will continue to be allowed to do so unless you speak out to your elected officials. You can rest assured that a defendant released on a surety bond has their bail agent watching them and will make sure they attend all court appearances - if not, it is not a dime out of your pocket as the bail agent is completely financially responsible for that defendant.

Let private enterprise do its job and take the burden off of the taxpayer!

Taxpayers Still Paying for Pretrial Release at Orange County, Fl. Jail

Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. revoked "administrative" pretrial release on November 5, 2009, which allowed jail staff to make release decisions without defendants seeing a Judge. However, defendants are still being released into the program by alarming amounts, except this time the Initial Appearance Judges are making that decision. These are not always defendants with no criminal and/or driving offense histories either and more and more defendants charged with domestic violence are being released on your tax dollars with little to no supervision. Such release is not a mechanism that will allow domestic violence survivors to feel safe. Domestic violence is the only crime that increased in Florida this year compared to all other crimes. Domestic violence can happen to any one despite their economic or social status as we have seen all too clearly. So why are so many domestic violence perpetrators being released through a taxpayer-funded system where no one is making sure they are abiding by the court's orders?

Below is a snapshot of names of defendants released by the Judge's order into the pretrial release program during mid-November through early December, as well as the crime(s) they are accused of committing:

• Kevin Foley - battery/domestic violence
• Daniel Standingbear - battery/domestic violence; petit theft
• Christopher Kahn - battery (2 counts)
• Jorge Irizarry - battery on law enforcement officer; trespass; disorderly conduct
• Antoneo Hampton - battery
• Paul Driscoll - battery
• Denzell Alston - battery
• Joel Santiago - aggravated battery on a pregnant person
• Jean Lorius - battery/domestic violence; tampering with witness to hinder communication
• Michael Stephens - battery
• Vincent Fiallos - battery/domestic violence; resisting law enforcement officer without violence
• Charles Wilson - battery on a person 65 years >
• Freedy Gonzalez - battery/domestic violence
• Felipe Piva - battery
• JD Adkins - battery/domestic violence
• McKenzie Brockington - battery/domestic violence
• Anil William - battery
• Felix Fuentes-Morales - battery/domestic violence
• Kate Huggins - battery
• Vannia Castillo - battery
• Randall Mendez - battery; tampering with witness to hinder communication
• Loretta Thompson - battery
• Dwayne Jones - battery/domestic violence
• Luis Machado - battery/domestic violence
• Pamela Hoover - batterydomestic violence
• Ghazy Alkhubaizi - battery
• Karan Applewhite - battery/domestic violence
• Maurice Herrere - battery/domestic violence
• Yeleine Ladino - aggravated battery
• Kiara Rivera - battery/domestic violence
• Raymond Susino - battery/domestic violence
• Jenah Schlater - battery/domestic violence
• Juan Garcia-Rivera - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
• Wesley Powell - burglary of a conveyance (2 counts)
• Austin Rivera - burglary of a conveyance (2 counts)
• Jorge Lopez - petit theft; possession of alcohol by person under 21
• Julio Martinez - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge; driving with no valid driver's license; attaching tag not assigned; unlawful tag alteration; expired driver's license > 4 months; no registration
• Ernest Murphy - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
• Shecolby Sims - possession of cannabis <20
• John Rabuogi - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
• Mashell Webster - possession of cannabis <20
• Andre King-Holland - possession of cannabis <20
• Orlando Rosado - resisting law enforcement officer without violence
• Tahmere Mitchell - resisting law enforcement officer without violence
• Frederick Simmons - urinating/defecating in public
• Chervis Bell - possession of cannabis <20
• Daniel Evans - possession of cannabis <20
• Fernando Avila - DUI
• Quentella Shelton - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge; providing false ID to law enforcement
• Wilmer Morales - driving with no valid driver's license
• Brian Payne - resisting law enforcement officer without violence; disorderly conduct
• Kathleen Biernat - petit theft
• Deja Lawrence - petit theft
• Shemetrice Tarver - petit theft
• Philipos Teka - DUI
• Hector Rivera - uttering forged check
• Benjamin MacKay - DUI
• Joseph Baslie - disorderly conduct
• Darleen McCullough - possession of cocaine; introducing contraband into county facility
• Luc Mazard - driving with no valid driver's license; no registration
• Shelisse Morales - grand theft 3rd degree
• Paul Cano - DUI; possession of cannabis <20
• Juanita Rudd - disorderly conduct
• Nocholas Szust - DUI
• Chad Sullivan - criminal mischief
• Kelsey Dunbar - DUI
• Edward Loach - possession of cocaine; destruction of evidence
• Narada Williams - DUI
• Annmarie Elswick - intentional threat to do harm
• Michael Connors - obstruction by false information; resisting law enforcement officer without violence
• Rafael Guzman - possession of cocaine; unauthorized use/possession of driver's license
• Felix Perez-silvestre - DUI
• Jose Alvarado - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
• Rodlet Andre - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge
• Komal Singh - trespass after warning
• Melissa White - resisting law enforcement officer without violence
• Antonio Domicianogomes - failure to leave property when ordered by owner

The release mechanism for many defendants is not being posted in the Clerk's database, so we will keep monitoring to see when and/or why such releases are taking so long to be posted. We will also continue to post the release on recognizance for defendants through the pretrial release program. A request to the jail to obtain the criteria for this type of release was made on December 10, 2009 and as of now, we still have not received it.

The jail's population capacity as of today is 84.3 percent of its overall capacity so continued release of defendants into the pretrial release program and who are NOT charged with a first-time, non-violent offense or truly indigent defendants, is unnecessary since the jail is definitely not over population.

Tell your elected officials to use your tax dollars wisely!

NAPSA: Be Truthful Regarding Pretrial Release Methods

The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) has on the home page of their website a link to an article from the Orlando Sentinel dated September 22, 2009 entitled, "Orange rejects bail bondsmen's criticism of its pre-trial release program." However, NAPSA has intentionally failed to post any subsequent media news articles showing successful lobbying efforts by the private surety bail industry to curtail ineffective and dangerous pretrial release practices at the Orange County, Florida jail.

NAPSA's ruse to use only one article with a title that seems to dismiss claims by the private surety bail industry that pretrial services/release practices are less effective, is evidence that they wish to hide any victories the industry may gain in calling attention to the negatives in the pretrial services industry.

The private surety bail industry nationwide is standing firm in a unified front to show the real public safety consequences and irresponsible use of millions of tax dollars to release and supervise defendants from jail with little to no accountability. NAPSA and like organizations are facing greater scrutiny for their release practices that cater more to criminal defendants than hard working law abiding citizens.

Don't be fooled by their rhetoric! To learn the rest of the story read below:

Judge Perry Agrees to Bail Bond Industry Demands on Pre-Trial Release
posted by David Damron on November 10, 2009 - Orlando Sentinel

"After a legal and political full-court press by bail bond agents, Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry agreed to change the rules governing a pre-trial release program the industry had sought, he said Tuesday.

The judge's move could force an estimated 17 extra Orange County prisoners to spend a night in jail to see a judge the next day. Under Perry's previous order, jail officials could determine if inmates qualified for the program, and release them before a judge reviewed the case. Currently, only inmates who bond out on less-severe crimes can avoid seeing a judge before going back on the street.

The bond industry recently filed a legal challenge to Perry's order governing such programs. In September it paid for 50,000 fliers to be sent to Orange homes arguing that the program released violent criminals from jail without ever seeing a judge.

Perry disagreed, and said that the rules he set up for such programs followed state guidelines, and prisoners who bond out could continue to avoid seeing a judge in many cases. But after consulting with Orange jail officials, Perry said he was comfortable with requiring pre-trial release inmates to see a judge.

Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, the Orlando bail bond agency behind the fight, was pelased with Perry's recent rule change. A company spokeswoman said it, "prohibits jail staff from making any release decisions," and requires anyone not released on bond to have a judge look at their case."

Safer Release Methods in Place at the Orange County Jail vs. Pretrial Services/Release

As of 11/30/2009, there were 1,861 arrests made over a 30-day period in Orange County, Florida. A snapshot of 500 recent defendants booked into the jail over a period of a few days covering the 30-day period, and their associated charges, reveal that crime is not down nor necessarily less violent. Many of the arrested individuals had multiple charges. Prior to November 5, 2009 and before the Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit reversed himself and amended the administrative order govering release from jail, 34 of the offenses for which these 500 individuals were arrested on were eligible for "administrative pretrial release" whereby jail staff would make a release decision without any judicial involvement.

Based on a citizen and media campaign by the private surety bail industry, and backed by facts showing the types of crimes defendants were being released on without any judicial involvement, the Chief Judge revoked "administrative pretrial release" and ordered that only a judge could release an individual into a pretrial release program in Orange County. The industry had argued that pretrial release programs offer minimal supervision for defendants charged with serious offenses, many of whom had prior criminal histories, and that tax dollars should not be spent to provide a service that private industry does for free with much more successful results. Due to pending legal litigation on behalf of Accredited over such release, someone decided to listen to us.

So you have a better understanding of the types of crimes individuals are continuing to commit in Orange County, Florida, below is a breakdown of such offenses for the snapshot of the 500 arrestees over the course of just a few days:

• DUI - 58 offenses total, 3 of which included prior arrests
• DUI manslaughter - 1 offense
• DUI vehicular homicide - 1 offense
• Possession of cocaine - 16 offenses total, to include 7 with intent to sell/deliver and 3 with armed possession
• Possession of cannabis - 43 offenses total, to include 8 with intent to sell/deliver
• Possession of drug paraphernalia - 27 offenses
• Possession of controlled substance - 16 offenses total, to include 8 with intent to sell/deliver/traffic
• Possession of heroin - 4 offenses total, to include 2 with trafficking
• Buglary of a dwelling - 9 offenses total, to include 2 to an occupied dwelling and 1 with assault in an occupied dwelling
• Burglary of a structure/conveyance - 12 offenses total, to include 1 to an occupied structure/conveyance and 1 armed burglary
• Robbery - 8 offenses total, to include 6 with force or a weapon
• Carrying a concealed weapon/firearm/ammo - 18 offenses total, to include 1 by a minor, 1 with altered serial number, 4 by convicted felons, 3 by convicted felons in commission of a felony, 1 with firearm/ammo in domestic violence context and 1 possession of ammo by convicted felon
• Carjacking with a firearm - 2 offenses
• Battery - 18 offenses total, to include 4 on law enforcement/security and 1 felony battery
• Aggravated battery/assault - 17 offenses total, to include 1 causing permanent disfigurement, 11 with a weapon and 2 on law enforcement with a deadly weapon
• Assault - 2 offenses
• Aggravated battery on a pregnant person - 4 offenses
• Domestic violence - 49 offenses total, to include 4 by strangulation and 2 with hindering communication with law enforcement
• False imprisonment - 3 offenses
• Stalking/aggravated stalking - 4 offenses total, to include 1 after an injunction
• Kidnapping with intent to commit felony - 1 offense
• Sexual battery - 3 offenses total, to include 1 with a weapon
• Sexual battery on a child - 3 offenses
• Show obsence material to a child - 1 offense
• Lewd/lascivious conduct/molestation - 2 offenses
• Petit theft - 16 offenses total, to include 4 with prior arrests
• Retail theft - 2 offenses
• Dealing in stolen property/pawn broker - 4 offenses
• Tresspassing - 16 offenses
• Driving with no valid driver's license - 15 offenses
• Driving with license suspended/revoked - 57 offenses total, to include 7 with knowledge and 11 habitually revoked
• Grand theft - 29 offenses total, to include 1 grand theft, 27 grand theft 3rd degree ($300-$5000) and 1 grand theft 1st degree (>$100,000)
• Reckless driving - 5 offenses
• Driver's license violation/expired tag/no registration/no endorsement - 9 offenses
• Threatening a public servant - 1 offense
• Disorderly conduct/intoxication - 14 offenses
• Criminal mischief/loitering or prowling - 11 offenses
• Open container/panhandling - 6 offenses
• Resiting law enforcment officer - 34 offenses total, to include 2 with violence
• False reports/ID to law enforcement - 5 offenses
• Fleeing/eluding law enforcment with lights and sirens - 7 offenses
• Destruction of evidence - 3 offenses
• Leaving scene of an accident - 4 offenses
• Staging motor vehicle crash - 1 offense
• Fraud/scheme to defraud - 8 offenses total, to include 2 for uttering forged check/bills, 1 defrauding an innkeeper and 1 exploiting the elderly
• Retailiating against a witness - 1 offense
• Violation of an injunction - 2 offenses, 1 for repeat violence (non-intimate partner) and 1 for domestic violence
• Unlicensed health practices - 2 offenses
• Desertion - 1 offense
• Prostitution - 1 offense
• Unlawful use of two-way communication device - 2 offenses
• Child abuse - 1 offense
• Attempted murder - 2 offenses
• Fugitive from justice - 2 offenses
• Failure to appear - 16 offenses
• Violation of probation - 32 offenses

Previously individuals arrested for such offenses would be asked if they wanted to get out of jail free or pay a bail agent to get out. In these tough economic times, what do you think the answer would be? But also ask yourself who is responsible for ensuring appearance in court until the case is resolved.

Defendants walking out of the jail under the pretrial release program rarely have face-to-face contact with jail staff and most are usually required to simply call into an automated telephone system for supervision weekly or bi-weekly. In contrast, defendants released on bail are integrally involved with their bail agent and have a network of family and friends involved in the bail contract to ensure compliance and no new law violations. Agents are financially and physicially responsible for defendants they release on bail - they don't show for court, the agent MUST by law pay the FULL bond amont, and not just the premium, back to the court within 60 days. Under a pretrial release program, more of your tax dollars are spent to find, re-arrest, re-book and then go through the court process once again. A excessive use of your tax dollars!

The private surety bail industry is committed to protecting public safety and ensuring the wise use of taxpayer funds. We stand behind you and will help protect you and our families.

Accredited Surety and Casualty: A Caring Employer and Leader in the Private Surety Bail Industry

Anyone who has a job in these tough economic times is blessed!

As companies strive to balance their budgets, many have been forced into freezing or cutting positions, cutting back work hours, deleting any company "perks" such as raises, health and retirement benefits, holiday parties/events, etc., while taking a hard look at the bottom line.

For those of us who are blessed to remain employed, we generally strive to do our best to support the overall company mission while continuing to do the best job we can to help our companies remain viable in our community.

Once in awhile you find yourself having the opportunity and priviledge to work for a company, that even in the worst of times, continues to show its employees that they are valued partners in the business.

Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc. is one of those companies.

Accredited employees go above and beyond every day because we work for a company, while like others has faced tough business decisions along the way, that truly cares about its employees and their families and promotes its mission and business philosophy in all that it does. Accredited, like other companies, has had to re-evaluate its core mission and service and adjust the business accordingly. However, the morale and enthusiasm of employees remains high.

Run by sisters Debbie and Sharon Jallad, Accredited never ceases to give back to its employees, agents, friends and community. The company values the hard work, dedication and loyalty of all of their employees and even in these tough times, finds ways to let us all know that we are truely welcomed in the Accredited family.

Not many companies have the national reputation, business and fiscal excellence, strong public safety policies, leadership qualities and business ethics that Accredited has. Accredited employees are proud to work for Accredited as we are not only valued as professional partners in the business, but also as family.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of the Accredited family, our friends and colleagues.

Accredited - you are the BEST!

Annual Review of Florida's Pretrial Release Programs Underway

The Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the Florida agency charged with evaluating the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of pretrial release programs in Florida, is currently reviewing such programs for the 2nd annual report. The first annual report was issued in December 2008. This second report is due to be published in January 2010.

Will provide an analysis of the 2008 report as well as any key findings in the 2009 report in the near future.

Recurring Issues at Orange County, Jail: Coincidence or Subtle Retaliation?

August 1, 2009 the Clerk of Court turned over all bond responsibilities to the Orange County Jail to include the posting of bonds, paying bond forfeitures and registering new bail agents in order to post bonds at the jail. The private surety bail industry had enjoyed a wonderful working relationship with the Clerk of Court staff in the booking facility at the jail for many years, and we were disappointed that due to budget cuts, the Clerk's staff had to relinquish these duties.

The jail said that the transition of assuming the clerk's duties would be seamless and all processes and procedures would be the same as with the Clerk of Court. However, the private surety bail industry in Central Florida had already encountered several issues in working with jail staff to resolve pretrial release issues, interviewing of inmates and getting free phone calls through to bail agents, so the "seamless" transition statement was taken with caution. Rightly so.

Even before the private surety bail industry was successful in Orange County, Florida with having "administrative" pretrial release revoked, officially ending the practice of jail staff making release decisions on inmates charged with serious offenses, a working relationship with most of the jail staff had already become increasingly acrimonious.

Bail agents had been stating for some time that the free phones in the booking facility, where inmates would wait until bonded out or seen by a judge within 24 hours, rarely work so that inmates can at least call a loved one, friend or bail agent to help post a bail bond. Free phone calls are allowed anywhere inside the jail to the public defender's office but not to bail agents who can help ensure the jail's population stays manageable. Bail agents have recently learned that the only way to get calls from inmates inside the jail is to set up an account with the jail's phone vendor, who refunds part of the proceeds of all calls back to the jail, and then the bail agent must also pay for all collect calls from the inmates. After inmates have gotten through to a bail agent, they are asked if they were able to make free calls and invariably, they all say no until they got back into the jail cells.

Many of the correctional officers bail agents have encountered also seem to have negative attitudes and have made comments such as, "it's not my problem," or blaming other shifts for mistakes that are costing the inmates more time in jail and the bail agents the ability to post a bond. Some correctional officers have even gone so far as to argue the law with bail agents about who they can and can't bond out and how the bail bond system works! Information on inmates takes more and more time to be imputed into the jail's Jail Trak system from initial booking all the way through release. And, more people are now being released on their own recognizance by jail staff, again without seeing a judge, since the administrative release function was revoked. We are tracking to make sure people are being released in this fashion legally according to the amended administrative order.

The Jail Chief has not been silent with his opinions, internally and externally, about the private surety bail industry expressing issues with how the jail is functioning or the release methods being used, and then being forced to acquiesce and change procedures because of some of the issues raised.

So is the recurring and increasing uncooperative working relationship between the jail and the private surety bail industry an attempt to send a message not to mess in the jail's turf? If the jail was truly interested in keeping the jail population manageable and keeping the public safe, they would foster a more collaborative working relationship with bail agents who play a critical role in the criminal justice system.

Orange County Mayor: Give Me Credit for Changes to the Pretrial Release Program

Orange County, Florida Mayor Richard Crotty did an about face recently regarding the pretrial release program at the jail when the Chief Judge suddenly revoked the way the program released defendants.

For the last several months, the private surety bail industry has put pressure on Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., the Mayor and Board of County Commissioners regarding an "administrative" release process that allowed jail staff to make release decisions. Defendants charged with serious and/or repeat criminal and driving offenses were routinely being released without any judicial involvement and minimal supervision. A mailer was sent to 50,000 Orange County citizens making them aware of how their tax dollars were being spent after numerous attempts to educate our elected officials on the public safety concerns for such releases. The response from citizens was overwhelming and a strong message was sent that they did not want their tax dollars spent to release and supervise defendants.

In response to the mailer, the Mayor asked the jail chief to make a presentation on September 22, 2009 regarding the success of the pretrial release program, to include the legal authority for such program to operate. The private surety bail industry had put the Chief Judge, the Mayor and Board of County Commissioners on notice that our contention was that release by a non-judicial authority was illegal. Judge Perry stated publicly and privately that he was not going to eliminate release authority by jail staff because his initial appearance judges would be forced to deal with more defendants who did not bond out within 24 hours. If the private surety bail industry didn't like his decision we could file a lawsuit challenging his authority with the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal. That is exactly what we did on October 26, 2009!

However, during the jail presentation the Mayor stated that the, "level of community supervision was key to the success of the pretrial release program and that an 84 percent success rate was pretty impressive." This comment was made after jail staff had stated that most defendants choose to call in to an automated telephone answering system as their "preferred" method of supervision. Mayor Crotty went on to accuse the private surety bail industry of lauching a public relations attack for a, "sliver of seven percent of releases," through the pretrial release program and patted himself on the back for holding public safety harmless during the budget process. It didn't seem to phase the Mayor that $1.7 million in tax dollars were being spent to allow "lay" individuals to make release decisions back into our community for individuals charged with serious and repeat offenses.

One week after a petition for common law writ of certiorari was filed on behalf of Accredited Surety and Casualty Company to the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal challenging the release process by a non-judicial authority, Judge Perry suddenly decided that the authority for jail staff to release defendants should be changed and issued an amended administrative order. This amended order, effective November 5, 2009, prohibits release into the pretrial release program prior to initial appearance in front of a Judge, acknowledging that such release decisions should not be made by jail staff. A huge victory for the private surety bail industry! But who do you think took credit for the change? Mayor Richard Crotty.

The Mayor issued a memo to the Board of County Commissioners on November 6, 2009 stating that he had instructed jail staff to review the, "internal processes and identify opportunities for improvement," of the pretrial release program and to work with the Chief Judge on, "potential revisions to the administrative order governing the pretrial release program." This is after the jail had made a presentation outlining the, "legal authority," for the program and the Mayor had publicly touted the success of the pretrial release program stating the county was, "on pretty solid ground," with the way the program operated.

No credit whatsoever was given to the private surety bail industry for advocating and fighting to make sure your tax dollars were spent wisely and that public safety was enhanced by providing a higher level of supervision than offered through the pretrial release program! Despite the fact that we had to legally challenge the release mechanism and highlight the types of releases happening through the pretrial release program and the previous contention by the Mayor and the jail that all was, "well," with the program . . . suddenly this about face occurs. Mayor Crotty has set himself up to continue to take credit for these changes by saying he has, "instructed staff to continue to monitor the progress of the pretrial release program and provide updates on a regular basis."

Sometimes an attempt at blatant credit, is just blatant.

Orlando Sentinel: Judge Perry Agrees to Bail Bond Industry Demands on Pretrial Release

Posted by David Damron - November 10, 2009

"After a legal and political full-court press by bail bond agents, Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry agreed to change the rules governing a pretrial release program, he said Tuesday.

The judge's move could force an estimated 17 extra Orange County prisoners to either spend a night in jail before seeing a judge the next day - or pay a bail bondsman to get them out immediately. Under Perry's previous order, jail officials could determine if inmates qualified for the pretrial release program and release them before a judge reviewed the case. This was costing the bail bond industry business.

So the industry filed a legal challenge to Perry's order governing the pretrial release program. And in September, it sent 50,000 fliers to Orange homes arguing that the program released violent criminals from jail without ever seeing a judge.

Perry disagreed, and said that the rules he set up for the program followed state guidelines. But after consulting with Orange jail officials, Perry said he was comfortable with requiring pretrial release inmates to see a judge.

Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, the Orlando bail bond agency behind the fight, was pleased with Perry's rule change. A company spokeswoman said it, "prohibits jail staff from making any release decisions," and requires anyone not released on bond to have a judge look at their case."

Orange County, Florida Jail: Administrative Pretrial Release Function Revoked

Administrative pretrial release, which allowed jail staff to release defendants without any judicial involvement, has been revoked by the Chief Judge after the private surety bail industry made elected officials and the public aware that defendants charged with serious and repeat offenses were routinely being released through the program. Tax dollars are used to manage and support such release.

Belvin Perry, Jr., Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orlando, Florida, amended his administrative order to prohibit release into the pretrial release program until initial appearance in front of a judge. Prior to this amended order, jail staff would release defendants charged with serious and/or repeat criminal and traffic offenses as delegated by the administrative order and the Chief of Corrections. Many of the released defendants had prior lengthy criminal and traffic histories, failures to appear and violations of probation.

Effective November 5, 2009, all defendants not released on a cash or surety bond within 24 hours of arrest, will attend an initial court appearance where a judge will make an informed release decision based on the criminal/driving history of the defendant, economic/social status, residency etc. The history provided to the judge must be certified as accurate by the pretrial release program.

A week prior to amending the administrative order, a Petition for Common Law Writ of Certiorari was filed with the 5th District Court of Appeal on behalf of Accredited challenging the administrative release process by non-judicial staff. The amended order validates Accredited's position that pretrial release must be a solely judicial decision. Judges are elected officials and accountable to the voters; jail staff and other "lay" individuals are not.

Bail agents work and live in our communities and take the issue of public safety very seriously. Bail agents are financially and physically responsible for defendants released on bail and integrate a defendant's family and friends into the bail contract. A much higher level of supervision is given to defendants released on bail without using any taxpayer funds. National studies have shown that private surety bail is the most efficient and effective method of pretrial release and guarantees a defendant's appearance in court.

Public policy affects public safety!

Accountability and Transparency for Pretrial Release Programs

Orange County Government in Orlando, Florida approved their final 09/10 fiscal year budget of over $3 billion dollars this September. The budget had to be balanced by using reserve funding, freezing hundreds of unfilled county positions, abandoning park and other county projects, curtailing travel for training and conferences and even using federal stimulus funds.

Much discussion was given to the $1.7 million dollars of taxpayer funds budgeted to the pretrial services/release function at the jail, which screens, releases and supervises defendants charged with serious and/or repeat criminal and driving offenses. Hundreds of such defendants never see a judge for their release.

Many offenders released through a pretrial release program are financially capable of posting a bail bond, and many have done so in the past. Why should taxpayer funds be used to release an arrested individual who has the means to do so themselves? Why not utilize such taxpayer funds to release truly indigent individuals arrested for non-violent, first-time offenses, as was the original intent of pretrial release programs? Why are your tax dollars being used to compete with private enterprise that does a more effective and efficient job of supervising defendants released from jail?

Promoting a dangerous taxpayer-funded release system that offers little to minimal supervision, while attacking the private surety bail industry with hundreds of years of success behind it, highlights government bureaucracy at its best! Not only are taxpayers continually being asked to open up their wallets and spend more on government services, but now another bureaucratic organization, the National Association of Counties (NACo), is also asking for you to spend more. NACo "represents" county governments nationwide, and is promoting to county elected officials to create or expand their taxpayer-funded pretrial release systems because money bail is wrong.

Public organizations using taxpayer funds should be accountable for the wise use of such funds and transparent in their effectiveness or non-effectiveness. Taxpayer-funded release systems are neither financially or physically accountable for defendants released under such programs; no one is physically keeping in contact with a defendant and/or their family and making sure the defendant appears for court. In addition, pretrial release programs receive no financial penalty if a defendant fails to appear for court. Your tax dollars are funding the program regardless.

Taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs are complaining that they must provide to the public detailed information on the defendants released through their programs; they say such requests are burdensome and time consuming. Are they afraid of being transparent by providing proof of their effectiveness? National studies have shown the ineffectiveness of unsecured release and thus why such programs fight against transparency.

Don't be fooled by their rhetoric or claims of helping their communities by releasing people who have a "right" to unsecured release. The real issue is the lack of public safety and potential danger our communities face when defendants are released back into our communities with no accountability for their actions. Public agencies using taxpayer funds should be transparent and open to providing the most effective services possible. Taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs have been shown time and time again to be ineffective by having the highest failure to appear and fugitive rates. Money bail has worked for hundreds of years because it is effective and accountable to the criminal justice system.

Public policy affects public safety.

Orlando Sentinel Article - Bail Bondsmen: Kill Orange pretrial release program

The October 31, 2009 edition of the Orlando Sentinel ran a story about the private surety bail industry's fight to ban administrative releases through the pretrial release program, where defendants are released without ever seeing a judge. While the article generally included factual statements, some comments were off point.

The private surety bail industry has filed a lawsuit with the 5th District Court of Appeal to prevent anyone other than a judge, or through a set bail schedule, from releasing an arrested defendant from jail. The Sentinel article stated that the, "fight centers on certain inmates considered minimal risks - first-time drunken drivers, people arrested on minor theft charges and other nonviolent crimes . . ." However, many individuals arrested for DUI and released through the pretrial release program are not first-time offenders, but their arrests and/or convictions for DUI fall outside of time parameters outlined in an administrative order governing release. In addition, the private surety bail industry contends that offenses such as aggravated assault/battery with a weapon, carrying/possessing a concealed firearm/weapon, burglary, grand theft 3rd degree, armed possession of drugs with intent to sell/deliver, exposing sexual organs, lewd/lascivious behavior, criminal use of identification, forgery, theft, child neglect, throwing a deadly missile at/into an occupied vehicle and numerous habitual driving offenses are not minor and/or non-violent offenses.

Many of the released inmates have lengthy criminal and/or driving offense histories and continue to not be held accountable for their actions by an easy and free release mechanism that offers limited and minimal face-to-face supervision or supervision through calling into an automated telephone answering system. The jail has been under capacity for most of the year, so continuing to release defendants charged with serious offenses is not addressing the issue of jail overcrowding at all. Nor is the true status of indigence being confirmed for any defendant released on your tax dollars.

County Commissioners have expressed concern regarding the pretrial release program because the private surety bail industry has made them aware of the types of releases actually occurring. Judges are accountable to the citizens who elect them for their release decisions; jail staff have no such responsibility to the voters.

Public policy affects public safety.

National Association of Counties Supports Taxpayer-Funded Pretrial Release Programs

The National Association of Counties (NACo), a national organization that represents county governments, has partnered with the Pretrial Justice Instiutute (PJI) to provide technical assistance and training to targeted counties to review and assess their pretrial programs and jail population capacity. The partnership is promoted as, "empowering elected county officials," as pretrial justice continues to be an important point of effective county jail population management.

NACo's 2009 "American County Platform" calls for counties to establish alternatives to money bail, such as establishing pretrial services/release programs using taxpayer dollars. The initiative aims to, "reduce wasteful spending and protect more victimization," by releasing criminal defendants back into our communities. Whatever happened to the old addage, "you do the crime, you do the time," by being accountable for your actions??

Let the system be more effective at the front end by working with the private surety bail industry and other criminal justice partners to develop innovative strategies for reducing the jail population without expending more taxpayer dollars.

Accredited has tried unsuccessfully in Orange County, Florida to promote an indigent bond program, where bail agents would release and supervise indigent defendants in our community by having the county pay the agent a flat fee of $100. The agent then assumes all financial and physical liability for that defendant. If the defendant fails to appear, the bail agent pays the county back the $100. It should be a win-win for county governments but instead they would rather spend millions of your tax dollars to release and "supervise" defendants rather than pay a bail agent a $100 to do the same thing! Accredited has also unsuccessfully tried to promote a probation bond program by putting in place a probation bond at the time a defendant is sentenced to probation. If the defendant violates any terms of his probation, the probation bond is already in place and again, the bail agent would release and supervise the defendant pending a hearing on the violation. As the system currently stands, when a defendant violates his/her probation, they are placed on a no bond status and wait weeks in jail to see a Judge for the violation hearing. More tax dollars spent by taking up jail bed days instead of being supervised in the community.

Public policy affects public safety!

Orange County Mayor's Race: Will Pretrial Release Be on the Agenda?

The Orange County, Florida jail's pretrial services/release program continues to grow using our tax money; once a huge bureacracy is formed we all know it won't go away. The County Commissioners are under the impression that there must be a pretrial services/release program per Florida statute and that such program must be funded by county government. However, that is not the case. No where in statute does it state that there must be a program to release and supervise defendants nor that county government must fund such program. The statute states there should be a presumption in favor of release on non-monetary conditions where appropriate; if a Judge wishes to release someone from jail on non-monetary means they have the discretion to do so. A pretrial services function is for the purpose of doing a thorough investigation on a defendant's background in order to provide for a more meaningful initial appearance so that a Judge can make the most informed release decision.

Thousands of post cards have been returned by Orange County citizens based on the mailer sent out by Accredited and are still coming in six weeks later. Citizens have stated unequivocally that they do not want their tax dollars spent to release and supervise defendants released from jail. All of the County Commissioners were advised of that fact at the budget public hearing in September and visually shown how many cards had been returned. Commissioners were particularly informed of the concerns of citizens regarding the types of crimes defendants were being released on without ever seeing a Judge. The jail chief has led commissioners to believe that the pretrial release program visits defendants released through the program at their job site and at their home. This is completely untrue. Home confinement, a totally different program, may offer that level of supervision but NOT the pretrial release program - supervision is relegated to calling in to an automated telephone system.

Three sitting Commissioners are running for Mayor: Commisisoner Segal, Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Fernandez. Commissioner Segal has stated that the only thing cash bond provides is to make sure someone appears in court, despite the volumes of information he has received that shows the contrary. He stated the law provides presumption in favor of non-monetary release and that the Chief Judge supervises it. The Chief Judge doesn't supervise the program, he just issues an Administrative Order governing the program. If there is a mistake, he doesn't take any heat from it nor does the court system fund the program! Commissioner Stewart, who received the most returned cards to date, has remained mute on the subject. Does that mean she doesn't care about the issue? Maybe her constituents should ask her. Commissioner Fernandez has been the only Commissioner running for Mayor who has asked and continues to ask the hard questions regarding how the pretrial release program is run and the type of people being released . . . and before she decided to run for Mayor. Commissioner Brummer, who is up for re-election, has also expressed his concerns regarding the program.

If you continue to care how your tax dollars are spent, make sure you let candidates running for Mayor know where their priorities should be and how you expect them to use your limited tax funds.

Public policy affects public safety.

Accountability

According to national data by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, local governments spend more money on criminal justice initiatives than state or federal goverments. Of those inmates in jail on any given day, 35 percent have been charged with violent offenses; 22 percent with property offenses; 23 percent for drug offenses and 20 percent for public order/ordinance offenses. Many of the inmates have a history of repeating criminal behavior.

Proponents of pretrial release programs acknowledge that courts are imposing more financial conditions of release for the crimes committed, as they should. Why would a judge release someone on pretrial release, particularly without a bond, when the level of supervision is only to call in to an automated telephone system?

In Florida, the average bail bond is $1,500, which means a defendant only has to post $150 and some form of collateral to gain release through a bail agent. Collateral is taken to involve a third party who will motivate the defendant to attend all of his court appearances. Don't you think if a defendant's parents, other family members or a friend put their house or car up as collateral or ensured the bail amount on a credit card if the defendant failed to appear, that the defendant would have more incentive to follow through on their responsibility? And if they don't, the bail agent and not the taxpayer is responsible for paying the full amount of the bond to the court.

Advocates of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs simply want defendants charged with any type of crime that requires financial release to be able to walk out of jail without paying a dime and with little to no supervision. Their goal is to abolish financial bail. In the four states that did abolish bail some years ago, their failure to appear and fugitive rates have skyrocketed to the point that it would take millions of dollars and manpower to find absconded defendants.

If someone willfully chooses to commit a crime then they should be held accountable for the consequences. It that means they have to use some of their own resources to get out of jail, or use someone else's resources, so be it. Maybe they will think twice the next time before commiting another criminal offense.

Prison and Jail Overcrowding

Nationwide, prison overcrowding has become a serious problem in America, which is funneling down to local jails. Such overcrowding leads to early releases of defendants convicted of serious offenses posing a serious public safety issue for communities.

The passage of crime legislation across the states, in an effort to curb rising crime rates, has led to increased prison and jail populations. It is a catch 22 scenario: making criminals pay for their criminal behavior and protecting the public or continue to spend millions of dollars building new prisons and jails to house criminals while other needed services and programs go unfunded.

The Orange County, Fl. jail books approximately 62,000 people annually. A snapshot of today's jail population shows there are 3,027 felony offenders and 607 misdemeanor offenders being held. The jail's population sits at 92.8 percent of its capacity, as it has for the good part of the year, which indicates it isn't facing any jail overcrowding issues.

However, hundreds of defendants continue to be released weekly through the pretrial release program using your tax dollars. Many of these defendants are released without ever seeing a judge. You may ask what the level of supervision is for these defendants through the pretrial release program: calling in to an automated telephone system on a weekly or monthly basis. Many defendants are also released on their own recognizance through the pretrial release program with no supervision whatsoever.

No one from the pretrial release program is watching! But, a bail agent would be.

Citizen Input on Pretrial Release Program Ignored

County Commissioners passed a $3.1 B budget last night, which includes over $148 M for the Corrections Department. The Pretrial Release program was held harmless despite input from thousands of citizens based on a mailer sent by Accredited stating that they do not want their tax funds spent to release and supervise defendants charged with serious offenses.

Several speakers from the private surety bail industry were in attendance to try to educate the Mayor and Commissioners on the differences between the Pretrial Release program and the level of supervision bail agents provide at no taxpayer expense . . . but our comments were in vain. Despite the serious offenses defendants are being released on without any judicial involvement, the Mayor and Commissioners simply took the advice from county attorney Tom Drage, who stated the county is, "following the law and doing the best they can; to do otherwise would be in violation of the constitution, statute and the administrative order issued by Judge Perry."

While Judge Perry's administrative order has a provision to delegate judicial authority to the jail chief to release individuals from jail, the Mayor and Board of County Commissioners are CHOOSING to use your taxpayer funds to do so. They have the option of telling Judge Perry that limited taxpayer funds should only be used to do a thorough investigative process into a defendant's background for a meaningful initial appearance.

If the Judges wish to then release defendants charged with serious offenses on non-monetary conditions, then they have the judicial discretion to release those defendants on their own recognizance. No where in statute does it state taxpayer funds have to be used to release defendants on non-monetary conditions!

It is not a provision of the law but a public policy decision to use taxpayer funds to supervise defendants released from jail. The Orange County jail is not overcrowded! It is running at 90 percent occupancy yet the public policy decision is still to use taxpayer funds for this purpose.

At Tuesday's Board of County Commissioners meeting, an addendum agenda item was added for the jail to make a presentation on the Pretrial Release program. Yet at last night's public hearing the Mayor was somewhat irritated that the private surety bail industry was in attendance to speak on an issue that, "had already been discussed at length." However, that was a one-sided discussion without the industry afforded the opportunity to comment. The Mayor's comment set the stage, at least from his perspective, that anything we had to say was mute. Based on statistics given by the jail, the Mayor's opinion is that the private surety bail industry is, "fighting for a little sliver of seven percent of defendant's released through the pretrial release program," and pretty much wasting the board's time expressing our views.

Thanks to Commissioner Fernandez who recommended that the Pretrial Release program undergo an independent audit. Let's see how long that takes to happen!

Speech to County Commissioners on September 24, 2009 Regarding Budget

Good evening Mayor, Commissioners, Comptroller Haynie and Mr. Lalchandani:

My name is Melanie Ledgerwood representing Accredited Surety and Casualty Company. I am here this evening to strongly encourage you to follow through on a review of the Pretrial Release program at the Orange County jail and the amount of taxpayer funds being used to release and supervise defendants charged with serious offenses.

Each of you received a hand delivered packet on August 17 detailing the private surety industry's concerns about the types of offenses people were being released on without any judicial involvement. These are the offenses that Commissioner Brummer and Commissioner Fernandez expressed concern about. Individuals have been released through the Pretrial Release program for such offenses as DUI, possession of and carrying a concealed firearm/weapon, possession of short-barreled gun, rifle, machine gun, grand theft 3rd degree, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, battery, assault on law enforcement, prostitution, burglary, forgery, theft, possession and armed possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and controlled substances with intent to sell/deliver, exposing sexual organs, lewd and lascivious behavior, throwing a deadly missile at/into an occupied vehicle and numerous driving-related offenses including habitual offenders with license revoked or no valid driver's license. Despite our concern over these types of offenses, we continue to hear the private surety bail industry is being untruthful and that we only care about making more money.

In front of me is just a sampling of responses from concerned citizens stating that they do not want their tax dollars spent to release and supervise defendants charged with these types of crimes. The private surety bail industry is not just about ensuring a defendant appears at court but also about protecting public safety. Bail agents provide a much higher level of supervision than the Pretrial Release program, which stated Tuesday that most defendants choose the automated telephone check-in system as their preferred method of supervision. Defendants released on bail have face-to-face contact with their agents, visits to a defendant's home or place of employment, live telephone conversations and not to an automated system and interaction with a defendant's family to ensure all conditions of bond are being met and to avoid any new law violations.

Community supervision is critical for a defendant to successfully complete their case and the private surety bail industry has a proven track record of providing such supervision at no cost to the taxpayer. An 84 percent success rate for the Pretrial Release program is also a 16 percent failure rate, which we don't deem to be "pretty successful" as the taxpayers pay for such failure in the end. In addition, the 84 percent success rate is artificially inflated as many defendants are also on a bail bond and it is the bail agent that ensures success.

Using taxpayer funds to release and supervise defendants charged with serious offenses, whether or not such releases are in accordance with an administrative order issued by Judge Perry, is a public policy decision this board must make. However your constituents have stated that they do not want their tax dollars spent in such fashion. Bail agents live and work in our community and we care about those individuals who CHOOSE to commit crimes and are then released back into the community. Public policy affects public safety!

Commissioners' Views on the Pretrial Release Program at the Orange County Jail

In a response to a mailer sent by Accredited to citizens educating them on the type of offenses individuals are being released on through the Pretrial Release program without ever seeing a Judge, the Board of County Commissioners hastily added an addendum to this past meeting's agenda, which wasn't published on the on-line public agenda, for the Corrections Department to make a presentation on the Pretrial Release program.

Statutory authority was discussed for the program, the "process" for screeing defendants and how defendants are supervised. I found it interesting that the manager of the program stressed the level of supervision given to defendants yet said that, "most defendants choose the automated telephone call-in system as their preferred method of supervision." That's really keeping an eye on those defendants!

Kudos to Commissioners Brummer and Fernandez for stating their concerns regarding the types of offenses individuals are being released on. However the other Commissioners either said nothing one way or another regarding the program or stated that they were, "relatively comfortable" with how the program currently operates!

The issue is not just that our tax dollars are being spent on a program that says it is doing its, "statutorily mandated purpose" by allowing the release of defendants on non-monetary means, but about people being released on serious offenses, which are not low-level or non-violent by any means.

If you feel an appropriate level of supervision for someone charged with carrying/possessing a concealed firearm/weapon, armed possession of drugs, grand theft, DUI, burglary, aggravated assault, battery etc. is to call in once or twice a week to automated telephone system, then do nothing. However, if you want such individuals adequately supervised by a licensed bail agent who is financially and physically responsible for that defendant, then attend the public hearing this evening at 6:00 at the Board of County Commissioner's chambers and let your Commissioners know how you feel.

Individuals who CHOOSE to commit crimes should be held accountable for their behavior!

Orange County Public Hearing on the Budget

According to the Office of Management and Budget for Orange County, the proposed pretrial services budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 is $1,699,895 and is rolling under Corrections Administration. This is the program that allows "administrative" release by Jail staff to release and supervise defendants charged with serious offenses.

Yet the Corrections Department made a presentation at this past Tuesday's Board of County Commissioners meeting and stated that the pretrial services budget, which is charged with screeing and investigating defendants for first appearance is only $35,000 annually; the supervision piece is housed under a completely different division, Community Corrections, and that budget is only $385,000 annually. That is a difference of $1,279,895!! Who is telling the whole story here?? What is the additional $1,279,895 being spent on pertaining to pretrial services?

These are your tax dollars being spent on a program that releases defendants charged with serious offenses who often never see a Judge for their release.

Let your voice be heard at tonight's public hearing on the budget and tell your elected officials you don't want your tax dollars spent to release individuals who choose to commit criminal offenses!

Cease and Desist Order from Orange County Government

Accredited paid for a mailer to be sent to county citizens to educate them on the $1.7 M dollars currently allocated to fund the pretrial services/release program at the Orange County jail. Several prior attempts had been made to encourage all County Commissioners, the Mayor and other county executives to have dialog with Accredited to discuss our concerns regarding the amount of tax dollars being used to release and supervise defendants charged with serious offenses who never see a judge for their release.

With the exception of Commissioner Mildred Fernandez, no other Commissioner or county leader publicly expressed any concern whatsoever regarding the use of taxpayer funds to release criminals from jail vs. letting the private surety bail industry do its job using no taxpayer funds. So we felt it necessary to educate the citizens on how their limited tax dollars were being spent. The response from outraged citizens has been tremendous.

So what do you think the reaction from Orange County has been? Well, we received a Cease and Desist order from the County Attorney's office stating that, "it had come to their attention that we had made an unauthorized use of the Orange County Government logo in a recent publication and the publication appears to urge individuals to petition against the county's funding of a pretrial release program." The order stated that we must immediately cease use of the logo per a 1997 Orange County code and that the county requires the destruction of all unused and undistributed copies of the publication. Finally, if we do not fully comply with this order, "the county will take appropriate action to enforce it's rights."

Not a sentence said regarding the issue of $1.7 M of your tax dollars being used to fund the pretrial release program to release defendants charged with serious offenses. In other words, the county was more concerned that we misused, in their opinion, the Orange County logo in a publication that they did not want distributed. Yet all of the county logos are on the county's website for anyone to download; are they saying they want to "approve" the use of every instance in which one of the logos will be used or are they "selectively" determining when to enforce an old county code when the message may make the county look bad?

The attempt by Orange County to change the subject by focusing on the issue of the logo rather than defending the use of taxpayer funds for the pretrial release program and its practices is a desperate attempt to change the conversation and hide the real truth!

We trust none of you will fall for that tactic! Let your voice be heard at the September 24, 2009 public hearing on the budget.

Role of Pretrial Services and Private Surety Bail

There is a role for both the private surety bail industry and pretrial services to play in the criminal justice system.

Pretrial Services should focus on doing a thorough investigation into a defendant's criminal history, social/economic ties, residency, failures to appear, etc. to provide to a Judge at an initial appearance session so that an informed release decision can be made by a JUDGE.

Bail agents will supervise defendants released on a bail bond and ensure they appear at court and abide by other conditions of release. Bail agents will be physically and financially responsible for defendants released on bail.

The decision makers have the information needed for a release decision provided to them by a pretrial services program based on a thorough assessment, and the bail agent ensures appearance at court.

The system runs smoothly by all parties working together efficiently and effectively!

Public Hearings on Orange County, Fl. Budget

The Board of County Commissioners will hold two public hearings on the proposed 2009/10 budget for members of the public to comment on: September 10 and September 24, 2009.

$1.7 million of your tax dollars is currently allocated to screen and supervise defendants released from the jail with them not paying a dime for their release! These are defendants charged with serious offenses and many of whom have prior criminal histories.

What other priorities do you have for spending $1.7 million dollars? Let your commissioners know!

Pretrial Release Programs

Some facts for you to consider about taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs throughout the nation:

• 48 percent of programs have never verified their risk assessment instrument
• Only 68 percent of programs calculate the failure to appear rate
• Only 37 percent of programs calculate the re-arrest rate

Why? Because the taxpayers are paying for such programs, which are run by county governments, many with huge bureaucratic programs. The economic costs to the taxpayers for failure to appear and re-arrests of defendants are absorbanant.

Let the private surety industry do its job for you using their own financial resources. We will make sure defendants appear at all court proceedings and adhere to conditions of the bond. If they skip, the bail agent is financially responsible and not YOU!

Upcoming Budget Hearings

Orange County is holding two public hearings on the 09/10 proposed budget and the pretrial release program is slated at $1.7 MILLION of your tax dollars! If you had $1.7 million dollars of tax money to spend, would you spend it to release criminals from jail or on other important priorities??

The public hearings are scheduled for September 10 and 24 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers (201 S. Rosalind Avenue).

Let your voice be heard!

Releases from the Orange County, Fl. Jail

We've mentioned that defendants are being released from the Orange County Jail using your tax dollars that are charged with serious offenses such as possession of drugs, controlled substances, possession/carrying concealed weapons, battery, DUI, lewd/lascivious behavior, burglary, theft, forgery neglect of a child and numerous driving offenses, many of them habitual offenses. These defendants never see a Judge!

Well defendants with identification holds or undisclosed holds are also being approved for release under the Pretrial Release program. Pretrial Services staff cannot begin to investigate a defendant's criminal history, social/economic ties, residency etc. if they don't even know who they are dealing with! Also people who are homeless have been released using your tax dollars.

The private surety bail industry is willing and more effectively successful at supervising such defendants using no tax dollars from you! Why is your county government competing with private enterprise?

Citizens' Right-to-Know Act

The Citizens' Right-to-Know Act in Florida was by signed the Governor in June 2008 and became effective July 1, 2008. This act requires more transparency for the public to learn about the types of defendants being released on their tax dollars from county Jails. Any member of the public can obtain registry information through the Clerk of Court's Office; you will be charged a $1 per page if you want a copy of the register or you can buy a portable scanner and scan the registry right from your laptop!

Educate yourself and learn about how your limited tax dollars are being spent to release defendants charged with serious offenses and who often have lengthy criminal and driving offense histories. If the Jail in your county in Florida says they are not producing a weekly register, tell them it is the law and they must do so!

Proponents of Private Surety Bail

From the BJS Special Report: Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts

Private Surety Bail . . .

• Reduces jail population by providing a means for defendants to obtain release
• Provides pretrial release and monitoring services at no cost to the taxpayer
• Creats an incentive that results in the majority of defendants being returned to court because the bail agent is liable for defendants who fail to appear
• Provides the opportunity for many defendants to secure their freedom while awaiting disposition of their case

Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts

Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D. and Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D. - Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice

Between 1990 and 2004, 62 percent of felony defendants in State courts in the 75 largest counties were released prior to the disposition of their case. Beginning in 1998, financial pretrial releases, requiring the posting of bail, were more prevalent than non-financial releases. Surety bond surpassed release on recognizance in 1998 as the most common type of pretrial release. Two-thirds of defendants had financial conditions required for release in 2004 compared to half in 1990.

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 for court. Defendants arested for violent offenses or who had a criminal record were most likely to have a high bail amount or be denied bail.

Public vs. Private Law Enforcement: Evidence from Bail Jumping

By Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

After being arrested and booked, most felony defendants are released to await trial. On the day of the trial, a substantial percentatge fail to appear. If the failure to appear is not quickly explained, warrants are issued and two quite different systems of pursuit and rearrest are put into action. Public police have the primary responsibility for pursuing and rearresting defendants who were released on their own recongnizance or on cash or government bail. Defendants who made bail by borrowing from a bail agent however, must worry about an entirely differenct pursuer. When a defendant who has borrowd money skips trial, the bail agent forfeits the bond unless the fugitive is soon returned.

As a result, bail agents have an incentive to monitor their charges and ensure that they do not skip. When a defendant does skip, bail agents must pursue and return the defendant to custody. Thirty percent of felony defendants who fail to appear and remain at large after one year become fugitives. The fugitive rate for failure to appear is higher for cash bond or release on own recognizance. The fugitive rate is lower for those defendants released on a surety bond than for any other type of release. The probability of being a fugitive is 64 percent lower on a surety bond compared to a cash bond.

Defendants Released through the Pretrial Release Program

Defendants were released "administratively" on the following charges through the Orange County, Fl jail without ever seeing a Judge - all at the taxpayers' expense:

Week of June 21 to June 27, 2009

• 11 defendants for possession of cannabis
• 1 defendant for possession of cannabis with intent to sell/deliver
• 2 defendants for possession of cocaine
• 1 defendant for possession of hydrocodone
• 8 defendants for driving with no valid driver's license
• 3 defendants for driving with license suspended/revoked
• 2 defendants for driving under the influence w/minor in vehicle .20 >
• 16 defendants for driving under the influence
• 1 defendant for disorderly intoxication causing pubic disturbance
• 3 defendants for petit theft
• 3 defendants for resisting arrest by law enforcement
• 2 defendants for criminal mischief/trespassing
• 2 defendants for battery
• 1 defendant for possession of burglary tools
• 1 defendant for grand theft 3rd degree
• 2 defendants for carrying concealed weapon/firearm

Week of June 14 to June 20, 2009

• 7 defendants for possession of cannabis
• 2 defendants for possession of cannabis with intent to sell/deliver
• 2 defendants for possession of cocaine
• 2 defendants for possession of a controlled substance
• 4 defendants for driving with no valid driver's license
• 4 defendants for driving with license suspended/revoked
• 1 defendant for driving with license suspended/revoked as habitual offender
• 2 defendants for reckless driving
• 1 defendant for driving with expired license > four months
• 2 defendants for driving under the influence with property damage/personal injury
• 5 defendants for driving under the influence w/minor in vehicle .20 >
• 16 defendants for driving under the influence
• 1 defendant for neglect of a child
• 4 defendants for petit theft/larceny
• 3 defendants for shoplifting
• 2 defendants for criminal mischief/disorderly conduct
• 1 defendant for grand theft 3rd degree

Week of May 24 to May 30, 2009

• 8 defendants for possession of cannabis
• 2 defendants for possession of cannabis with intent to sell/deliver
• 1 defendant for possession of cocaine
• 5 defendants for driving with no valid driver's license
• 1 defendant for driving with license suspended/revoked as a habitual offender
• 1 defendant for driving under the influence with property damage/personal injury
• 1 defendant for driving under the influence w/minor in vehicle .20 >
• 1 defendant for boating under the influence
• 15 defendants for driving under the influence
• 1 defendant for open container
• 4 defendants for petit theft/larceny
• 2 defendants for urinating/defecating in public
• 2 defendants for disorderly conduct
• 3 defendants for battery (two defendants had three counts each)
• 2 defendants for carrying a concealed firearm
• 1 defendant for possession of a firearm/weapon by convicted felon
• 2 defendants for trespassing
• 3 defendants for resisting law enforcement
• 6 defendants for grand theft 3rd degree
• 4 defendants for forgery/fraud
• 1 defendant for obtaining property by worthless check
• 1 defendant for possession of counterfeit payment instrument
• 1 defendant for dealing in stolen property

If you think these defendants held any accountability for their crimes by being released free of charge with no monetary sanctions and little supervision think again! Many of these defendants had criminal histories and driving offenses and were able to post bond in the past. If any one of them fails to appear, more of your tax dollars will be used to try and find them. These type of releases happen every week!

Do you feel any safer now?