Second Whistle Blower Speaks Out on Pretrial Services

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."

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.

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.