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

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.

Florida Pretrial Release Legislation Advances for 2011 Session

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/

Giving of Thanks and Free Pretrial Release

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!

Bail Industry Seeks to Ensure Safety

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.

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

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

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

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!

Nationwide Legislative Initiatives Regarding Pretrial Services/Release

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.

Failing to Appear: Pretrial Release vs. Private Surety Bail

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.