Forum Threads http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:05:05 +0000 200 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/527-sarasota-injury-attorney-%e2%80%93-call-an-injury-attorney-when-you-are-injured/
Along with accidents, attack by pets, home injuries, work injuries, incorrect medical prescriptions, wrongful death, medical malpractice, insurance bad faith, estate and asset protection are also taken care of by injury attorneys. They have the expertise in helping clients that undergo all these issues. Although most of the cases injury attorneys handle are car accidents, others like dog bite, animal attack, defective products, medical malpractices and even death.]]> Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:05:05 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/527-sarasota-injury-attorney-%e2%80%93-call-an-injury-attorney-when-you-are-injured/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/525-bail-bond-agent-%e2%80%93-choosing-the-right-bail-bond/
Bail bond is a legal document signed by both the guilt and the bail bond agent providing surety that the guilt will turn up to every court hearing proceedings. Bail bond is an important legal document. Here, the bail bond agent pays a surety in court and will be forfeited if the accused fails to appear in court. These days, anyone can seek professional help of bail bonds in case of imprisonment.]]> Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:58:37 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/525-bail-bond-agent-%e2%80%93-choosing-the-right-bail-bond/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/495-researching-bonds-for-clients-tips-for-attorneys/ bail bond for your client a smart choice.

BailQuote Gives You Options
There are a number of available options for someone seeking a bail bond, just look in the yellow pages or google. The only problem is, more than half are not local, a lot of them can be misleading, while others don’t always do what they say when they say, etc. With BailQuote you put in one request and you get multiple quotes from our alliance of trusted bail professionals. Dealing with BailQuote means you deal with only local agents that have excellent track records and who are experienced with the local jail and court personnel.

We Save You Time
Time is always an issue, and if you choose the first bail company you call, you may not get the best service or terms for your client, which could lead to problems down the road depending on the company. By using BailQuote, you spend NO time searching for the best terms for your client, which means more time doing other things. And to your client and client’s family, you’ll look like a genius.

Did We Mention Our Service Is Free!
It is fast, free and confidential. We pride ourselves on knowledge, technology and service.]]> Tue, 11 May 2010 12:51:40 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/495-researching-bonds-for-clients-tips-for-attorneys/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/493-when-the-clients-do-no-show-up-as-per-schedule/ When the clients do no show up as per schedule there are features available with online scheduling software to take away the corresponding charges from the credit cards of the clientele according to your terms and conditions set in practice. This support can either be enabled or disabled according to your well and wish. --- JANICE NOBLER. For more information, visit coconut7.com When you try the free trial version of these online scheduling software you would seldom let it go off as it would not take much time for you to get acquainted to it. Mon, 10 May 2010 12:58:04 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/493-when-the-clients-do-no-show-up-as-per-schedule/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/492-route-schedules-unto-a-maximum-one-year/ You can route schedules unto a maximum one year in advance which strengthens your long term planning potential. Google calendar and the Microsoft outlook or any standard being followed and appreciated amidst your network of contacts could be synchronized with your online scheduling software so that altogether activities are in unison avoiding confusion and mismatch. --- JANICE NOBLER. For more information, visit coconut7.com Mon, 10 May 2010 07:55:52 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/492-route-schedules-unto-a-maximum-one-year/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/103-welcome-to-bail-bonds-usa-forum/ ]]> Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:03:56 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/103-welcome-to-bail-bonds-usa-forum/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/46-10-causes-of-crime/ Here we reveal 10 causes of crime in order to find solutions. The big idea behind this article is that underlying causes of crime should be tackled through preventative interventions, such as rehabilitating offenders and giving them an alternative to crime. Punishment deals with the symptoms of crime, whereas prevention deals with the root causes.

Before we can start concocting a crime solution that actually works, we need to dig for the root causes of crime. Only then we can find the right solutions that deal directly with the source of the problem, as opposed to limiting ourselves to dealing with the symptoms through punishment measures. This article provides resources to identify the source(s) of the disorder, as well as suggesting solutions.

There is no single cause to any disorder, including crime. While clearly we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions, it is wrong to hold an individual wholly responsible for his unlawful act. There are certain factors in our societies, cultures (family values), system (educational, political, law-enforcement…), economy, and so on that endorse the potential of criminal activities of an individual. An organization as a whole should take a part of the blame in order to transform the conditions in which criminal-minds breed.

“Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it” - Henry Thomas Buckle

“Society prevents the crime, the criminal omits it.” - Talidari

10 Causes Of Crime
Weakness - People are not bad by nature, but sometimes simply too timid to resist the vicious demons that play on their weaknesses and cut their bond with the source of their Power. Humans are good by default, but not everyone is made of steel so as to defend themselves against the demonic forces - destructive emotions and detrimental attitudes: fear, ignorance, hatred, worry, revenge, envy, attachment, greed, lust, selfishness, doubt, prejudice, pride, vanity, impatience, sloth, discrimination, arrogance, ambition, addiction, gluttony, criticism, blame, anxiety, frustration and so on. We all get attacked by those faulty ethereal goblins of our minds and hearts, but most of us succeed to resist them. It’s easy to act on anger, greed, revenge or any of highlighted above, but it takes courage and strength to determine that there is something more important than that.
There are two core reasons why weakness prevails with some:

lack of faith, not believing enough in the power of one’s own internal weapons (against inner demons), such as: courage, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness, mercy, honesty, sincerity, integrity, honor, modesty, humbleness, generosity, love, compassion, kindness, detachment, patience, self-discipline, temperance, etc. As a result of not trusting inner resources, there is no enough motivation to develop them and use them. Art Solutions - get the free crime cure; watch inspirational films and read inspirational stories of good qualities conquering the bad ones.

imbalance - most criminals are simply too strong physically, pumping up the body muscles, but not enough the mental and emotional muscles. The reason why their strength becomes weakness is because they are not balanced. Art Therapy Solutions - get the free artistic crime cure; watch the movie trilogy ‘Samurai’ by legendary Japanese director Hiroshi Inagaki. It tells the story of the greatest Samurai warrior in Japan - Musashi Miyamoto, his journey from being just a tough warrior to a true hero, equally strong on all three accounts: physical skills, mental calmness and emotional state. Watch all three films online here for free.
Underneath all the weaknesses is a genuine human desire to do well. When we delink ourselves from our source (Higher Power), we find ourselves either in a wrong relationship or in a wrong job, or simply in a wrong place at wrong time, but also in a wrong state of mind - causing us to do the wrong things, on the wrong side of tracks.

Poor judgment - Lack of proper education and great role-models causes many to fail to distinguish right from wrong. In most cases offenders don’t think they are doing something wrong, it seems right from their point of view. Poor judgment is also reflected in knowing it’s wrong, but thinking they could get away with it, not getting caught. Art Therapy Solutions - get the free crime cure
Lack of love - Being raised in a dysfunctional family, or coming from a disadvantaged background, or feeling discriminated, none of it alone can cause crime. There are so many others in the world with such conditions, but nevertheless don’t turn to crime. However they cause the lack of love and respect for others. That, endorsed with some other factors, can be a major issue related to crime.
Poverty - Poverty is often blamed for leading to crime, however underneath is something more vital - society bombards us with commercial values, making us want more and more material things, to the point when some would do anything (including criminal acts) to get them. Unemployment is another factor in this category that contributes to crime through looking ways to earn money by any means possible. Art Therapy Solutions - get the free crime cure; - find the best powerbroker (presented also on the right side) to help you out of poverty into wealth
Deprived neighborhoods - economically impoverished neighborhoods breed criminal minds. Solution: if moving out is out of the question, then keep away from the guys in the hood by making yourself busy with putting your new show on the road. Do you have the strength to distance yourself from the harmful influences of your neighboors? If not, find the strength from the power behind your new thing, which you can discover in the picture guide ‘Jump’.
TV violence
Being a victim in a chain of events - Sometimes individuals don’t mean to cause harm, but are drawn into it by a chain of events that are beyond their control or influence.
Poor parenting skills - erratic or harsh discipline, lack of parental control, supervision and monitoring, parental conflict, family dysfunction/breakdown, criminal, anti-social and/or alcoholic parent/s Fatherlessness is also one of underestimated cause of crime. Read more about it by clicking here.
Ecological - It has long been known by police officers that cold winter nights keep criminals off the streets and crime levels down. Crime scientists speculate that one of the hidden consequences of global warming will be an increase in street crime during mild winters. Studies have suggested that warmer temperatures boost aggression hormones such as epinephrine and testosterone.
Fraudulent Supreme Court rulings - Defective court rulings are one cause of the extra crimes. Read more about it here
Solutions
Prevention - there are plenty of people out there contemplating illegal or immoral acts, who should be prevented to act on it.

Playing on their fear of punishment works for most, but is not enough for the others. - Social welfare is one of the greatest contra-measures to keep unemployed individuals from resorting to desperate means in order to keep a head above water.

Sports provide a good outlet for young men and perhaps keeps them out of trouble.

Art Therapy is another outlet that additionally provides a a sense of higher truth, a frame for the search for identity, a journey from the stressful reality to a transcendental world of pure penetration and splendor, means for helping us to cope with life’s afflictions and paradoxes that could empower and inspire us to better our lives, find something powerful and special that easily deals with pessimism, distrust and lack of meaning…just to name a few.
Converting - to convert a criminal into a honorable citizen it takes more than implementing fear of punishment. Arts can do wonders in transforming any individual, including criminals. Talidari’s triple action transition formula used in the crime cure ‘Jump’ uses the power of inspiration to stimulate criminals to make a jump to the right side.
Reformation - remodeling the system (educational, economic, jurisdiction…) that breeds criminals is a core necessity. There is a saying telling that if you want to change others, start by changing yourself. Everything is related and we all are in a way responsible for the way our world is. By transforming the causes (one of which is the system) we can both prevent and reduce crime.
Punishment - No doubt, every person who harms another should be punished, but also rehabilitated so that the crime is prevented from reoccurring. Punishment is good for two reasons: it shows the offender that one can not get away with doing the wrong things, and as a form of prevention - the fear of punishment is often (but not often enough) main reason for law-abiding citizens not to slip to the other side of the tracks. However, the question is how severe the punishment should be. A sentence that is longer than 2 years can have contra-effective results, apart from the cost for us taxpayers. Coming out after too many years being locked has proven to be more difficult to re-integrate and make it out there, and more easy to resort back to crime. Investing in improving the system instead of in accommodating prisoners seems more effective long-term.

Source of this article for the bail bonds blog]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:34:03 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/46-10-causes-of-crime/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45-why-do-bondsmen-exist/
Bondsmen exist to pay bonds, obviously, but moreover, their services ensure the safety of citizens and society. Bail bondsmen, as confirmed by a number of studies, more effectively bring criminals and offenders to justice than public methods or release on their own recognizance. Bail bondsmen offer decreased failure to appear rates compared to those released on their own recognizance. Because bondsmen have a financial contract or obligation, their main goal is to guarantee that offenders are brought to court.

In contrast, when defendants are released on their own recognizance, it is the duty of police officers to guarantee the appearance of such offenders in court. Unfortunately, police officers have many concerns in their bureaus, and often the re-arrest of a perpetrator might be overlooked. This is why the services offered by bondsmen are so important to society. By bringing defendants and offenders to justice in court, bail bondsmen and bounty hunters safeguard the interests of society as a whole.

Bail bondsmen more effectively serve the community because of their over 50% reduction in failures to appear over those released on their own recognizance. Moreover, bail bondsmen save time and money for police precincts and communities. They decrease the amount that would need to be spent on the re-arrest and court costs imposed by an offender who has jumped bail. Bondsmen therefore exist to bring criminals and defendants to court, protecting the interests and safety of society. Without the efficiency displayed by bail bondsmen, certainly more criminals would be roaming the streets. Bail bondsmen ensure that a defendant will be present in court, and if that defendant fails to show, the bounty hunters employed by these bondsmen will find the bail jumpers, re-arrest them, and bring them to court promptly.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:31:23 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45-why-do-bondsmen-exist/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/44-bail-bonds-in-the-media/
My questions is: Should the Judge also be responsible? Should the DA be responsible? If the judge or District Attorney felt that the defendant posed a risk to anyone or was a flight risk shouldn’t they have held them on a “No Bail”? Why the judge issue a bail amount if he felt the defendant was a risk? And why didn’t the District Attorney argue to keep the defendant in custody rather than issue a bond?

Who’s really at fault here? The answer is: It is the responsibility of the defendant himself to obey and comply with the rules and laws the Government has set forth. It is not the responsibility of the Bondsman, Judge, DA or Family members of the defendant to force him to comply with the law.

Often times articles are written about how a Bondsman is responsible and how it’s the Bondsmen’s fault that the defendant committed additional crimes while on bail. Actually studies show that people on bail are much less likely to commit crimes while on bail than when released on their own recognizance.

If the media needs someone to point a finger at when a person on bail commits a crime they should be pointing the finger at the defendant himself. And if that’s not good enough the media should point the finger at the judge who decided that the defendant did not need a bond and should be released on his own signature.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:30:33 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/44-bail-bonds-in-the-media/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/43-arizona-bail-law/
Fragoso v. Fell, 2005 WL 1097302 (Ariz. App. May 10, 2005) held that the Arizona Constitution guarantee of a right to bail with “sufficient sureties” did not prevent the trial court from requiring a “cash only” bond. The Court discussed conflicting decisions on this issue from other states with the same or similar constitutional provisions and concluded that cash was a form of surety within the discretion of the court. The dissenting Judge would have held that a surety is a third party guarantor not a deposit of cash and thus a right to bail with sufficient sureties meant the court had to accept an appropriate surety bond and could not insist on only cash.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:28:31 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/43-arizona-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/42-ohio-bail-law/
In State v. Delgado, 2004 WL 41404 (Ohio App. January 9, 2004) the trial court granted two extensions of time for the bail bond surety to apprehend the defendant but refused to remit any portion of the forfeiture when the defendant was returned shortly after forfeiture. The trial court’s only reasoning was that the nature of the surety’s business was to assume the risk that the defendant would not appear. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded holding that the trial court had to consider a number of factors including the delay and cost to the state in obtaining the defendant and preparing for trial a second time, the surety’s efforts to return the defendant, and any other factors the court finds to be relevant. The trial court has discretion but must exercise it in light of the purpose of bail to assure that the defendant appears at all stages of the proceeding.

In State v. Hardin, 2003 WL 23167301 (Ohio App. December 31, 2003) motions for remission of bond forfeitures were filed without requesting a hearing or setting forth any factual basis for relief. The trial court denied the motions without a hearing. The court of appeals affirmed, in a 2-1 decision, even though there was no basis in the record to review whether the trial court considered the various factors governing requests for remission of forfeiture. If the sureties had asked for a hearing and alleged facts entitling them to relief, the opinion suggests they would have been entitled to a hearing.

Jones v. Bea, 2004 WL 442876 (Ohio App. March 12, 2004) is a very strange case. The defendant’s father testified he obtained a $15,205 cashiers check payable to the Clerk of Court to pay a 10% cash bond plus fees to the clerk (he would have been liable for the balance of the $120,000 bond if his son failed to appear) but the bail agent waylaid him at the clerk’s office and insisted on signing the bond for the balance as surety, and they agreed that when the $15,000 was returned the bail agent would give the father $8,000 of the $15,000 and keep the rest as his fee. The defendant did not appear for sentencing and the bond was forfeited. The father then sued the bail agent for converting the cashiers check and won. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that since there was no refund there was no obligation to return anything.

In State v. Harshman, 2004 WL 491410 (Ohio App. March 15, 2004) the trial court ordered that cash bail deposited by the defendant and his mother be applied to court costs and restitution. The Court of Appeals held that this was improper. The Court first noted that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the purpose of bail is the appearance of the defendant and reasons for forfeiture must be related to nonappearance. The State argued that the form signed when the bail was deposited consented to its application to costs and restitution, but the Court held that the consent was invalid because the availability of bail was conditioned on signing the form.

In State v. Rich, 2004 WL 2390085 (Ohio App. October 22, 2004) the surety (Capital Bonding Corp.) appealed denial of its motions to remit bond forfeitures in two cases in which it surrendered the defendants after forfeiture was entered. In the two cases the trial court made identical findings, including that the surety was negligent in writing the bond because the defendant had failed to appear on prior occasions. The Court of Appeals first held that the 30 day period to appeal ran from the date the clerk entered the defendant’s sentence, not the date the bond was forfeited or the date the motion for remission was denied. The Court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in one of the cases because the record supported its findings but that in the other case there was no evidence the defendant had failed to appear on a prior occasion or that the state was inconvenienced by the failure to appear. In the latter case, the Court reversed and remanded for a determination of how much of the forfeiture should be remitted.

State v. Owens, 2004 WL 2526412 (Ohio App. November 9, 2004) held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering forfeiture of the defendant’s cash bond. The trial court failed to consider the brief delay between the defendant’s breach and her voluntary appearance and the lack of any cost or inconvenience to the state. Rather than remand for consideration in light of these factors, however, the Court of Appeals directed that the bond money be released.

In Maloney v. Ohio Department of Insurance, 2004 WL 2590952 (Ohio App. October 4, 2004) the Court affirmed the Department’s denial of a bail bondsman’s license to a convicted felon. Ohio R.C. 3905.14 specifically provides that the superintendent of insurance may deny an application based on such a conviction, and there was no abuse of discretion in doing so in this case.

In City of Willoughby v. Beckwith, 2005 WL 880220 (Ohio App. April 15, 2005) the surety filed a motion to vacate forfeiture of its bond and a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to vacate. It then appealed denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the surety could have appealed the original order of forfeiture or the order denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture, but that a motion for reconsideration of a final order, and any decision on such a motion, are nullities from which no appeal can be taken. Therefore, the appeal was untimely and was dismissed.

Castle Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Stoneman, 2005 WL 1005276 (Ohio App. April 28, 2005) affirmed summary judgment for the surety against the indemnitors (the parents of the defendant) based on a promissory note and indemnity agreement they signed. The court rejected the indemnitors’ argument that they should not be liable because they did not read what they signed or no one explained it to them.

State v. Sheldon, 2005 WL 1283681 (Ohio App. May 27, 2005) held that a bail bond can be revoked for violation of conditions other than appearance, but that a forfeiture could be entered only if the defendant failed to appear. The defendant’s presence at the hearing to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited prevented the trail court from entering a partial forfeiture, and the trial court’s judgment was reversed.

State v. Stoneman, 2005 WL 1384662 (Ohio App. June 9, 2005) denied the surety’s motion to remit all or part of the bond forfeiture. The defendant fled, and the surety was unable to recover him in spite of several time extensions. After the bond was forfeited, the defendant was captured by law enforcement authorities in Canada and returned to Ohio. The court refused to remit any part of the forfeiture and held that the surety’s small expense in trying to locate the defendant weighed against the major, successful efforts of law enforcement personnel fully justified the trail court’s denial of any remittitur.

Smith v. Leis, 835 N.E.2d 5 (Ohio 2005) held that cash only bail violated the provision of the Ohio Constitution guarantying that “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties . . . .” Prior to 1998, the Court had held in several cases that the sufficient sureties clause barred cash only bail, but in 1998 the Constitution was amended, and the issue before the Court was whether the amendments changed that result. In a 4-3 decision, the Court held that it did not. The purpose of the amendment was to allow pre-trial detention, under certain circumstances, of defendants charged with less than a capital offense. Among other things, the amendment added the following to Section 9, Art. I, “the court may determine at any time the type, amount, and conditions of bail.” The Court thought that reading Section 9 as a whole, the added language did not give the court an option to prohibit bail by sufficient sureties.

In State v. Hodge, 2005 WL 2936283 (Ohio App. November 7, 2005) the defendant posted a $50,000 cash bond and fled to Florida. She was arrested there and returned. The state incurred costs of about $6,000 to transport her back to Ohio. The Court affirmed denial of her motion for partial remission of the forfeiture. Her failure to appear was willful, and she was apprehended in Florida and involuntarily returned. The factors to be considered in a request for remission are the cost and inconvenience to the state, the willfulness of the violation and such other factors as the trail court finds relevant. The court properly balanced the relevant factors and denial of the defendant’s motion was not arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable.

In State v. Carter, 2005 WL 3337733 (Ohio App. December 9, 2005) the defendant had failed to appear in court 66 times in the past including at least three times in this case. Nevertheless, the bail agency provided a bond, the defendant did not appear, and the bond was forfeited. After the police arrested the defendant, the bail agency moved to remit the forfeiture. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Remission is within the discretion of the trial court, and none of the factors to be considered favored remission. The Court noted the defendant’s history and stated, “A company engaged in the bail bond business is ultimately engaged in the business of guaranteeing attendance of the defendant at court hearings.”

In State ex rel. D & D Bonding, Ltd. v. Johnston, 2005 WL 3497709 (Ohio App. December 13, 2005) a bail bond agency and its owners and employees sought writs of Prohibition and mandamus to compel the Judge and Clerk of the Jackson County Municipal Court to accept bail bonds from them. The Court denied all relief. The facts are somewhat muddled, but on January 1, 2004, the Judge issued a bail bond schedule that permitted only cash bonds. On January 23 she withdrew that schedule and issued a replacement that permitted either 100% surety bonds or 10% cash bonds. The plaintiffs did not challenge the disparate treatment of surety bonds and cash bonds. The Court denied as moot the request for an order directing the Judge to accept surety bonds.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the Judge instructed the Clerk not to accept their bonds, but the proof did not support the allegation. The Court also stated that the Judge would have been within her discretion to order the clerk’s office to refuse bonds from an agency if she had doubts about the agent’s authority or intention to pay forfeitures.

State v. Warden, 2005 WL 3507844 (Ohio App. December 23, 2005) held that cash bail deposited by someone other than the defendant could not be used to pay the defendant’s fine. The Court stated that a bail bond can be forfeited only for failure to appear and that cash or securities deposited by anyone other than the defendant cannot be used to pay the defendant’s legal obligations except with the consent of the person making the deposit.

In State v. Hancock, 2006 WL 827386 (Ohio App. March 31, 2006) the defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. The defendant appeared before the hearing to show cause, however, and the court reinstated the bond without notice to the surety or the surety’s consent. The defendant eventually pled guilty but did not appear for sentencing. The trial court forfeited the bond and in due course entered judgment against the surety. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment because Ohio law permits forfeiture of bonds and remission of forfeitures, but it does not permit reinstatement of a forfeited bond. Once the bond is forfeited, if the defendant appears the court must require a new bond and consider remission of the forfeiture. In this case, the bond was forfeited the first time the defendant failed to appear, and on remand the trial court was directed to consider remission of that initial forfeiture.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:27:22 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/42-ohio-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/41-oklahoma-bail-law/
source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:26:24 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/41-oklahoma-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/40-pennsylvania-bail-law/
In Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 2005 WL 2403814 (Pa. Super. September 30, 2005) the trial court refused to consider the equitable factors relevant to remission of forfeiture because the surety’s efforts did not have a substantial impact on the defendant’s recovery. The Court of Appeals held that the three equitable factors should be considered, along with the bondsmen’s role in recovering the defendant. Upon consideration of the factors, however, the Court of Appeals held that no remission was justified and affirmed the trial court’s result. The factors were: (1) willfulness of the defendant’s breach, (2) cost, delay and inconvenience to the government and the court, and (3) any explanation or mitigating factors. In this case, the defendant acted willfully and there was prejudice to the government and the court. There were no mitigating factors and thus no basis for relief from the forfeiture.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:25:55 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/40-pennsylvania-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/39-south-carolina-bail-law/ In Integrity Bail Bonds v. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, 2004 WL 784734 (Fla. App. April 14, 2004) the State, after the bond was written, increased the offense charged from a third degree felony to a second degree felony. The Court held that this change, which increased the potential maximum sentence from 5 years to 15 years, was a substantial change that increased the likelihood the defendant would abscond. Therefore, the bond was discharged, and the trial court erred in not setting aside the forfeiture (”estreature”) entered after the defendant failed to appear. The Court rejected the County’s argument that the surety had a duty to object after receiving notice of the increased charge.

In Ex parte Gene Frye Bail Bonds, 2004 WL 943531 (S.C. App. May 3, 2004) the defendant was arrested on additional charges and failed to make a court appearance. The surety sought relief from its obligations on the bond. The statute allowing such relief, S.C. Code §38-53-50, prior to its amendment in 1998, stated that the court could order a partial refund of the fee. That provision was eliminated in the 1998 amendments, and the Court of Appeals concluded “the governing statute does not authorize the circuit court to require a bonding company to pay any portion of the fee back to the defendant or his guarantor in order to be released from a bond.”

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:25:21 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/39-south-carolina-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/38-texas-bail-law/
Quintero v. State of Texas, 2003 WL 21101395 (Tex. App. May 15, 2003) rejected arguments that there was insufficient evidence the principal signed the bond, that incorrect admonishment on appointment of counsel voids the bond, and that thecourt should have let one year elapse after failure to appear before forfeiting bond.

Olivarez v. State, 2003 WL 21476320 (Tex. App. June 26, 2003) is unusual because the bondswoman appeared pro se and won. She was helped by the fact that the state did not file a brief in the appeal and, in fact, neglected to place the bond in evidence in the trial court.

David’s Bail Bond v. State, 2003 WL 21509112 (Tex. App. June 30, 2003) affirmed the trial court’s denial of a bill to review forfeiture of the bond because the appellant did not provide a court reporter’s transcript of the hearing in the trial court. The decision to grant or deny relief was within the discretion of the trial court, and without a transcript the Court of Appeals could not find an abuse of discretion.

In Castaneda v. State, 2003 WL 21509098 (Tex. Crim. App. July 2, 2003) the bail bondsman knew that each of the five commercial drug dealer defendants was an illegal alien and would be turned over to INS when released on bail. None of the five appeared for trial, and they had apparently been deported. In the trial court and first level court of appeals, the bondsman unsuccessfully argued that the fact of deportation was an “uncontrollable circumstance” justifying exoneration of the bonds under Tex. Code of Crim. Procedure Art. 22.13(3). The lower courts rejected the argument and affirmed judgment of forfeiture. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in a 6 to 3 decision, considered an argument no one had made in the lower courts and held that under Tex. Code of Crim. Procedure Art. 17.16 the surety was automatically discharged if it delivered an affidavit that the defendant was in custody elsewhere and the sheriff verified that fact. This seems to be a great deal for the bondsman of an illegal alien subject to detention and deportation by INS. The bondsman can collect the premium, the defendant is “released” to INS, the bondsman immediately submits the affidavit, the sheriff verifies that the defendant is held by INS, and the bond is automatically discharged. As the three dissenting judges point out, it is possibly an even greater deal for the drug dealers (in these cases transporters of hundreds of pounds of marijuana) who have no trouble getting a risk-free bail bond, are sent back to Mexico and never face prosecution. Indeed, they presumable go back to work smuggling drugs into the U.S. secure in the knowledge that if they are caught they will be able to post bail and be sent home never to face trial. One of the few things one can definitely count on is that neither the courts nor the legislature are interested in helping drug dealers. The Texas Supreme Court or the Legislature may look for a way to change this result.

Webb v. State of Texas, 2003 WL 21666630 (Tex. App. July 17, 2003) is not strictly speaking a bail bond case, but it is nevertheless interesting because it holds that the crime of soliciting bonding business in a jail, police station or other place of detainment can be committed over the telephone. That is, the bail agent or bail surety need not physically be present in the detention facility when the solicitation occurs or at any other time.

Texas law requires that the defendant on a bail bond (as well as the surety) be given notice that the state is seeking a judgment of forfeiture and that the judgment be against both the defendant and the surety. In Guy Williams, d/b/a Freedom Bail Bonds v. State of Texas, 2003 WL 21961517 (Tex. App. August 19, 2003) the trial court entered judgment against both, but the state did not establish in the record that it had sent notice to the defendant. Given how simple it would be to show mailing of notice, there may be some implication from the state’s silence that it did not give the notice. On the other hand, Mr. Williams just submitted an affidavit that to the best of his information and belief no notice was given to the defendant. On this ambiguous record the court of appeals held that summary judgment should not have been granted, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. Ironically, entry of judgment against the surety, who admittedly received notice, is at least postponed because the state did not establish it gave someone else notice.

Guy Williams d/b/a Freedom Bail Bonds v. State of Texas, 2003 WL 21998531 (Tex. App. August 25, 2003) and Guy Williams d/b/a Freedom Bail Bonds v. State of Texas, 2003 WL 21998567 (Tex. App. August 25, 2003) are virtually identical to the August 19 opinion as are six more cases with the same title dated August 27, 2003: 2003 WL 22017272, 2003 WL 22017294, 2003 WL 22017309, 2003 WL 22017331, 2003 WL 22017491, and 2003 WL 22017497.

Villanueva v. Gonzalez, 2003 WL 22238913 (Tex. App. October 1, 2003) does not involve a bail bond forfeiture but is nevertheless interesting. Mr. Villanueva deeded property to Mr. Gonzalez which Mr. Gonzalez used as security for bail bonds he wrote. Mr Gonzalez was supposed to pay Mr. Villanueva half the profits but failed to pay. The court held that the agreement was a violation of section 1704.252(9) of the Texas Occupations Code which authorizes a county bail bond board to revoke the license of anyone who pays a commission or fee to, or divides commissions or fees with, a person or business entity not licensed under Chapter 1704 (which regulates bail bond sureties). Since the agreement was illegal, the court refused to enforce it and left the parties where they stood. Mr. Gonzalez apparently gets to keep the property and not pay Mr. Villanueva the promised half of the profits.

International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State of Texas, 2003 WL 22976423 (Tex. App. December 17, 2003) considered whether appeal of a bail bond forfeiture is a civil or criminal matter and which procedural rules apply. The court held that the appeal was a criminal matter but that pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 44.44 the civil rules governed. The court then granted the surety’s motion to dismiss its appeal.

In Maya v. State, 2004 WL 57405 (Tex. App. January 14, 2004) the surety filed an “affidavit to go off bond” pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 17.19 but did not bring it to the magistrate’s attention. Before it was acted upon, the defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. The court held that the mere filing of the affidavit did not give the surety an affirmative defense to the bond forfeiture. Under the statute, the surety has a defense if the magistrate or court refuses to issue a warrant as requested by the surety. The failure to act on the surety’s filing of the affidavit was not such a refusal.

In Soileau v. State of Texas, 2004 WL 78176 (Tex. App. January 20, 2004) the court rejected a number of technical objections to the state’s summary judgment. The surety argued that the exhibits to the summary judgment motion were not properly authenticated, but the court pointed out that the originals were part of the record on appeal. The surety argued that the record did not establish that the principal was served, but the court had ordered the citation of the judgment nisi to be served, and there was no evidence offered to overcome the presumption the court’s order was carried out. The surety argued that the principal was not properly served with the summary judgment motion, therefore the judgment against the principal was void, and there could be no judgment against the surety without a judgment against the principal. The court held that bail forfeiture is a criminal law matter, the civil law of guarantees is inapplicable, and there could be a judgment against the surety even if the principal had been dismissed.

In re Ernesto C. Casteneda, 2004 WL 572355 (Tex. App. March 24, 2004) denied a petition to review the trial court’s refusal to accept Mr. Casteneda as a surety because he had not paid forfeiture judgments in other cases. Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 17.11, §2 disqualifies a surety in default on a bail bond.

Baeza v. State of Texas, 2004 WL 803895 (Tex. App. April 15, 2004) affirmed judgment on a bond. One element of a bond forfeiture in Texas is that the name of the defendant was called distinctly at the courthouse door. The trial court took judicial notice that this was done, and on appeal the surety objected to such judicial notice. The objection was not made in the trial court, however, and thus not preserved for review on appeal.

Burns v. State of Texas, 2004 WL 1007621 (Tex. App. May 5, 2004) and three companion cases (2004 WL 1007697, 1007772, and 1007827) all upheld the application of a formula to determine the amount of a forfeited bond to be remitted if the defendant is surrendered. The Court also held that Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) definitely decided that subsection (a) of a former statute directing remission of the entire bond amount less certain costs was unconstitutional, and refused to reconsider that holding.

Taylor v. State of Texas, 2004 WL 1171731 (Tex. App. May 27, 2004) reversed a judgment against a bail agent who had signed the bond only on behalf of the surety. The state conceded that the agent should not have been personally liable.

Ex parte Durst, 2004 WL 1193225 (Tex. App. June 1, 2004) held that bail of $1 billion on each of three charges was unconstitutionally excessive. The defendant was a proven flight risk and wealthy, but the trial judge had imposed conditions to address the flight risk including that the defendant pay the cost of 24 hour surveillance by a licensed peace officer selected by the court. The three charges were third degree felonies: bail jumping, failure to appear and destruction of evidence. The majority opinion did not say what amount of bail it considered to be constitutionally permitted under the facts of the case, but a concurring opinion argued the court should save time by specifying between $150,000 and $200,000.

In Cardona v. State, 2004 WL 1347275 (Tex. App. June 16, 2004) the defendant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, but his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeals. The State intends to seek discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision in the Court of Criminal Appeals. The defendant requested bail pending the State’s appeal, and the Court reviewed the criteria to be applied in determining the amount of bail. [Not published.]

Castenada v. State 138 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2004) grants reconsideration of Castaneda v. State, 2003 WL 21509098 (Tex. Crim. App. July 2, 2003) and reverses the result. In its initial decision the Court held that the surety was automatically discharged under Art. 17.16 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because it delivered to the Sheriff an affidavit stating that the defendant accused drug dealers were in INS custody and the Sheriff verified that fact. On reconsideration, the Court held that it would not consider the Art. 17.16 defense because it was not raised in the trial court. The Court then went on to reject the surety’s other contentions either because they also were not raised in the trial court or because they were not supported by the record.

In four State v. Williams cases, 2004 WL 1632561, 1632648, 1632650 and 1632917 (Tex. App. July 22, 2004) the court rejected the surety’s argument that a certified copy of the bail bond should not have been admitted into evidence and that the bond principal had to be served with the citation. On the latter point, the court did not address the merits of the question because the surety did not raise the issue before the trial court, and in two of the cases the principal was served anyway. [Not published].

In Cowboy Bail Bonds v. State, 2004 WL 1879643 (Tex. App. August 24, 2004) the court held that the surety had not complied with Article 17.19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 17.19 allows a surety to file an affidavit of its intention to surrender the defendant. If the court refuses to issue a bench warrant for the defendant and the defendant fails to appear for a subsequent court date, the bond is discharged. The bail agent filed an “affidavit to go off bond” but did nothing to bring the affidavit to the court’s attention or secure a ruling on it. The Court never took it up, and the defendant subsequently failed to appear. The Court of Appeals held that just filing the affidavit is insufficient to cause the court’s inaction to constitute a “refusal” to issue the warrant. [Not published].

In Harris County Bail Bond Board v. Pruett, 2004 WL 2307362 (Tex. App. October 14, 2004) the court considered challenges to two Rules promulgated by the Harris Count Bail Bond Board. Rule 24 forbids bail bondsmen or anyone working for them from soliciting bail bond business from persons with outstanding warrants (that is, from contacting the criminal before he or she is arrested). Rule 25 forbids the solicitation of bail bond business within 24 hours of arrest or during other than normal business hours. Both rules have an exception for a bail agent with an existing bond for the defendant, and Rule 25 also excepts a bail agent with a prior relationship with the defendant. The Court rejected all the challenges to both rules except a First Amendment challenge to Rule 25. The court reasoned that the purported purpose of Rule 25, to prevent harassment of citizens, was substantially undercut by the exception and the real effect of the Rule was to prevent competition by bail bondsmen who did not have a prior or current relationship with the defendant.

In Alkek v. State, 2004 WL 2472262 (Tex. App. November 4, 2004) notice of the judgment nisi was not mailed to the bond principal at the address stated on the bond, and the judgment was against only the surety. There was no dispute that this was not in accordance with statutory requirements. In a 2-1 decision, however, the Court held that the judgment appealed from was not final and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. The dissent argued that the judgments were final and reversible.

Gonzalez Bail Bonds v. State, 147 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App. 2004) vacated summary judgment forfeiting the bond. The defendant was not indicted at the next term of court after he was admitted to bail. That would exonerate the bond unless he was bound over before indictment and the prosecution was continued by order of the court. The record in the case did not show that the prosecution was continued by court order. The court held that was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact precluding summary judgment. The dissent would have affirmed the summary judgment on the theory that there was no reason to believe that an order granting such a continuation would appear in the record of the case and, therefore, there was no inference to be drawn from its absence. The court also stated that ratification and estoppel are principles of civil substantive law not applicable in bail forfeiture proceedings.

Kubosh v. State, 2004 WL 2966391 (Tex. App. December 23, 2004) affirmed judgments forfeiting two bonds. After being released, the defendant was arrested on another charge, and while he was in custody, the bail bondsman surrendered the bonds with an affidavit to the court, and a warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest. Article 17.16 of the Texas Code of Crim. Proc. provides that the surety can secure discharge of the bonds if it delivers to the Sheriff of the county in which the prosecution is pending an affidavit that the defendant is in custody and the Sheriff verifies the incarceration. Instead of following the statutory procedure, however, the bondsman telephoned the jail, told a deputy that the arrest warrants had been issued, and asked that a “hold” be placed on the defendant. The Court held that the bondsman was not entitled to relief since he had not complied with the statute. It also rejected his argument that public policy required the sheriff to verify the defendant’s incarceration upon receipt of the telephone call. The Court stated that it had to follow law and precedent not public policy.

Kubosh v. State, 177 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App. 2005) rejected the surety’s argument that the bond should have been exonerated because the defendant was in Mexico and the Mexican government did not issue a “provisional warrant” for his arrest because of inadequate policies of the Harris County District Attorneys Office. The Court held that the four grounds stated in Tex. Code of Criminal Procedure §22.13(a) were the only grounds to exonerate the bond, and the surety’s argument did not fit under any of them.

Harris County Bail Bond Board v. Pruett, 177 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App. 2005) denies motions for rehearing of the Court’s opinion at Harris County Bail Bond Board v. Pruett, 2004 WL 2307362 (Tex. App. October 14, 2004) but files a replacement opinion reaching the same ultimate conclusion. The case involves the enforceability of Harris County Bail Bond Board Rules 24 and 25, and the Court rejected all the challenges to both rules except a First Amendment challenge to the part of Rule 25 forbidding solicitation within 24 hours of arrest by anyone who does not have a prior or existing relationship with the defendant.

Allegheny Casualty Co. v. State, 2005 WL 780302 (Tex. App. – El Paso April 7, 2005) is another case involving a defendant turned over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). He was arrested trying to enter the United States with 42 pounds of marijuana and charged in state court. Bond was set at $1,500 and the defendant was released to INS, which removed him back to Mexico. Needless to say, he did not take advantage of the fact that he could have applied to return to the U.S. for his court appearance. The bond was forfeited. The surety argued that deportation of the defendant prior to the time he was to appear is an automatic exoneration of the bond or, at least, an “uncontrollable circumstance” preventing the defendant’s appearance and discharging the surety under Texas law. The court rejected both arguments. The court noted the practically penalty-free attempt to import 42 pounds of marijuana and stated, “Now appellant would like this Court to excuse it from this minimal obligation under the bond entirely, allowing it to make a tidy profit on a scheme which is obvious to all but the most naive.” A logical question is why bond was set at only $1,500 if everyone involved knew it was in effect a fine and the only penalty the defendant was likely to face.

Harrell v. Bowles, 2005 WL 975378 (N.D. Tex. April 25, 2005) rejected a constitutional challenge filed by sureties who deposited cash bonds. The sureties argued that the Sheriff’s refusal to return the deposits, charging of unauthorized fees, retention of interest earned, and refusal to turn over abandoned funds were unconstitutional takings. The court held that the sureties had not availed themselves of the clear state law procedure to seek return of the deposits and other relief and, therefore, they could not assert a claim for an unconstitutional taking. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice. It appears from the decision that no corporate surety bail bonds were involved. Rather the sureties were individuals who acted as sureties by depositing funds with the Sheriff.

In Vance v. McRae, 2005 WL 1105076 (W.D. Tex. April 29, 2005) a bail bondsman sued the Bexar County Bail Bond Board and one of its members for various civil rights violations. The defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part. The Board suspended the plaintiff’s license, but on appeal the state court lifted the suspension and returned the plaintiff to full licensed status. The plaintiff filed this federal suit seeking damages. The Court held that the Board was subject to suit and did not have judicial immunity but that the individual member of the Board was immune from suit on certain statutory claims. The Court rejected the Board’s argument that the claims were barred by a “deliberative and decisional process privilege.”

In Ranger Insurance Co. v. State, 2005 WL 1384319 (Tex. App. – Hous. June 2, 2005) the surety argued that Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution forbidding extradition of a Honduran citizen was an “uncontrollable circumstance” within the meaning of Art. 22.13(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code because it prevented the surety from returning the defendant. The court held that the surety had not established a factual basis in the record for its argument and affirmed the judgment of forfeiture. The court did not address the substance of the surety’s contention.

In re State of Texas ex rel. Jose R. Rodriguez, 166 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2005) held that the County Attorney could represent the state in the bond forfeiture proceeding and that the surety did not have standing to complain that the County Attorney’s simultaneous service on the County Bail Bond Board and representation of the state in bond forfeiture proceedings was a conflict of interest. The appeal was by a request for a writ of mandamus to the trial court, which had disqualified the County Attorney, and the Court of Appeals directed the trial court to vacate its opinion with the writ of mandamus to issue if it failed to do so.

Trevino v. State, 2005 WL 1643184 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi July 14, 2005) affirmed judgments forfeiting two bonds in spite of the fact that the bonds described the charge against the defendant as “Theft by Possession” and the judgment nisi stated that the indictment charged the defendant with engaging in organized criminal activity. The trial court took judicial notice of the criminal case files and found that the acts of theft by possession were the basis for the criminal conspiracy and that all the charges were from the same criminal episode. The Court held that the variance was reconciled and not fatal to forfeiture of the bonds.

Alkek v. State of Texas, 2005 WL 1907778 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi August 11, 2005) denied the surety’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. After the judgment of forfeiture was entered, the surety filed a timely petition for a Special Bill of Review that was denied. The surety did not appeal, but after 30 days had run filed another petition for a Special Bill of Review. Eventually, the surety appealed from denial of the second petition. The Court held that when the appeal period ran after denial of the first, timely petition, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the judgment and therefore the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

Williams v. State of Texas, 2005 WL 1907685 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi August 11, 2005) and Williams v. State of Texas, 2005 WL 1907686 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi August 11, 2005) both rejected three arguments made by the surety and affirmed judgments forfeiting the bonds. In both cases, the Court held that the bond principal was properly noticed by mailing to the address on the bond and that a certified copy of the bail bond was properly admitted into evidence under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. The Court also held that the post-forfeiture appearance and guilty plea of the defendant (Westlaw No. 1907686) and post-forfeiture dismissal of the criminal case (Westlaw No. 1907685) were not grounds to discharge the surety under Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 22.13.

Pruett v. The Harris County Bail Bond Board, 2005 WL 3047062 (S.D.Tex. May 20, 2005) held that Tex. Occupations Code §1704.109 was unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The Code section forbad “a bail bond surety, an agent of a corporate surety, or an employee of the surety or agent” from taking certain acts to solicit bail bond business. The prohibited acts were soliciting business from an individual for whom a warrant had been issued but not served unless the surety or agent had a prior bail bond on the individual and soliciting business in person or by telephone between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. or within 24 hours following the individual’s arrest. The Court held that the statute violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. It agreed that the prohibited acts were commercial speech but was not convinced that the restrictions directly and materially advanced the state’s interest in preventing harassment and protecting law enforcement officers or that the restrictions were narrowly drawn. In Harris County Bail Bond Board v. Pruett, 2004 WL 2307362 (Tex. App. October 14, 2004) the Texas Court of Appeals considered a Bail Bond Board Rule very similar to §1704.109 and held that it also violated the First Amendment.

Smith v. Johnson County Bail Bond Board, 2005 WL 3436798 (Tex. App. December 14, 2005) affirmed denial of an application for a license to act as the agent of a licensed bail bondsperson. The Board’s Local Rule 10.1 required such an applicant to meet all the requirements of the Texas Bail Bond Act, and one of those requirements was that the applicant not be a convicted felon. The applicant had a felony conviction, and so was properly rejected. The Court upheld Local Rule 10.1 as within the Board’s authority and not a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Olivarez v. State, 2005 WL 3501714 (Tex. App. – Waco December 21, 2005) dismissed the bondsman’s appeal because she failed to file a docketing statement. Much of the opinion, however, discusses the payment of fees applicable to civil appeals in bond forfeiture cases. The Court stated that such fees are owed but, since they were not customarily collected, they would be waived in this and all other pending appeals. A dissent agrees that the fees are owed, but would not waive them. The dissent would have given the appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed if she did not pay the fees and file the docketing statement. [Published].

In Kubosh v. State, 2006 WL 560186 (Tex.App. - Houston March 9, 2006) the State asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the bond and the judgment nisi in the court file and rested its case. The surety agreed the court could take judicial notice of its own file but objected to admission of the bond into evidence. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the State and the surety appealed on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support the judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could take judicial notice of the documents, that the surety’s evidentiary objections were not raised on appeal, and that the bond and judgment nisi were sufficient evidence to meet the State’s burden of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:24:28 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/38-texas-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/37-washington-bail-law/
Ranger sued the Clerk for negligence in applying the payment (which Ranger had designated for the cases on which it was surety) to the Granite bonds and for returning its money to Signature. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Clerk on the theories that Signature was Ranger’s agent and could direct how the payment was to be applied and receive the refunds on Ranger’s behalf and that the Clerk had quasi-judicial immunity for negligent acts.

The Court of Appeals held that Signature had no actual authority to apply Ranger’s money to Granite’s obligation and that there were material issues of fact as Signature’s apparent authority. It also held that the Clerk was acting in a ministerial capacity and was not protected by quasi-judicial immunity. It vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case. A dissenting judge would have affirmed the trial court.

In State v. Surety Bankers Insurance Co., 2005 WL 583404 (Wash. App. March 14, 2005) the defendant was not apprehended in the 60 day period following forfeiture, and the surety paid the forfeiture. A few days later, the defendant was arrested on a new charge. The surety played no part in the arrest. The trial court refused to remit any of the forfeiture. The surety did not meet the statutory requirement for relief because it was not directly responsible for producing the defendant. It argued that the court nevertheless had discretion to grant relief on equitable grounds. The government argued that the statute foreclosed such equitable relief. The Court of Appeals held that it did not need to reach the issue of whether equitable relief was possible because the trial court exercised its discretion and was within its discretion in denying the relief requested by the surety.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:23:39 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/37-washington-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/36-wyoming-bail-law/
source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:22:56 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/36-wyoming-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/35-united-states-bail-law/
In United States v. King, 349 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2003) the trial court, over the government’s objection, permitted the defendant to travel to Nigeria despite the fact that he had shown what the court calls a propensity for flight. However, he in fact returned to New York and then skipped. The Seventh Circuit’s decision contains excellent language on exoneration of the surety by an unconsented to increase in the risk assumed, including “That a material change in risk can discharge the surety’s obligation is a staple of suretyship law; the principle is not limited to criminal cases.” The court holds, however, that the increased risk from letting the defendant travel to Nigeria did not discharge the surety because the defendant in fact returned to the United States before fleeing. In effect, the court looks at whether the surety was actually harmed by the action which increased its risk. If it was not actually harmed, it is not discharged. The Seventh Circuit, however, clearly states that if the surety had been harmed, i.e., Mr. King had stayed in Nigeria, the surety would have been discharged.

United States v. Garza, 2005 WL 673325 (5th Cir. March 23, 2005) held that bail agents did not have standing to appeal denial of their motion to remit the bond forfeiture. The agents did not present any evidence that they paid the forfeiture or had a contractual obligation to indemnify the surety company. The court specifically found that the corporate surety paid the forfeiture and that the motion was filed allegedly in the capacity of sureties not in a representative capacity on behalf of the corporate surety. [Not published].

In United States v. Zuluaga-Berrio, 377 F.Supp.2d 611 (W.D. Tex. 2005) the defendant fled to Mexico but was apprehended by the Mexican authorities and retrieved by the U.S. Marshal’s Service. The Government incurred some expense in bring him back from Mexico. The surety moved for remission of the bond forfeiture. The court held that forfeiture was mandatory when the defendant failed to appear but that complete or partial remission of the forfeiture was within the discretion of the court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f). The court granted a partial remission because the defendant was in custody but was not surrendered by the surety or bail agent. For reasons not explained, the surety had paid only $7,600 of the $25,000 penal sum, and the court ordered remission of forfeiture of the unpaid balance. This would seem to punish the surety for making the partial payment, or conversely to reward the surety for not paying the entire forfeiture. It would seem to have made more sense to base the amount forfeited on the Government’s expense in obtaining custody or the delay involved, but since the decision does not explain why only $7,600 was paid, there may have been a connection between the amount and the Government’s expense or the amount and some other rationale for computing the partial remission.

In United States v. Rojas, 2005 WL 3006078 (11th Cir. November 10, 2005) the defendant failed to appear, the bond was forfeited, and the bail agent started foreclosure proceedings against the residence of the indemnitor. The indemnitor took out a second mortgage and paid the amount of the bond to the agent. The defendant was eventually recovered, and the indemnitor asked the trial court to vacate the forfeiture and order the agent to return her money. The trial court ordered return of the money, less the agent’s expenses in recovering the defendant, but the Court of Appeals held that there was no federal jurisdiction over the contractual dispute between the bail agent and the indemnitor.

In United States v. Varner, 2006 WL 482398 (W.D.Va. March 1, 2006) the conditions of the defendant’s release included not using drugs, drug treatment and home detention. He violated those conditions but never failed to appear. The court revoked his bond, forfeited the bail and incarcerated the defendant. The surety, the defendant’s sister who had pledged real property, moved for reconsideration of the forfeiture. The court held that the surety was bound only by the written bail agreement, and it was conditioned only on appearance. The key factor was that an outdated bail bond form was used. The 1998 form only required appearance, unlike the December 2003 form that would have required both appearance and compliance with the other conditions of release. The court granted the motion for reconsideration and exonerated the bond.

In re Lopes, 2006 WL 695748 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 21, 2006) rejected the professional bail bond agency’s objections to the dischargeability of its claim against the debtor. The debtor was an indemnitor on a bail bond written for her husband. The husband failed to appear, and the bond agency paid the forfeiture. The indemnitor then filed for bankruptcy. The bond agency argued that the debt should be non-dischargable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7) as a fine, penalty or forfeiture payable to or for the benefit of a governmental unit that is not compensation for an actual pecuniary loss. The court held that the debt was a simple contractual obligation owed to a private party and was to compensate the bond agency for its pecuniary loss in paying the forfeiture. The court recognized that if the debtor had been the principal on the bond, and therefore directly obligated to the government, the bond agency could have been subrogated to the government’s rights and argued that the money owed on the bond was a penalty and not compensation for a pecuniary loss.

In United States v. Mena, 2006 WL 1294623 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006) the defendant was released on a personal recognizance bond co-signed by his wife and two others. The defendant did not appear for sentencing and is a fugitive. The wife moved to set aside or reduce the amount of the bond. The court noted that hardship on the surety was not a grounds to reduce the bond and denied her motion.

source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:22:29 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/35-united-states-bail-law/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/34-why-do-bondsmen-exist/
Bondsmen exist to pay bonds, obviously, but moreover, their services ensure the safety of citizens and society. Bail bondsmen, as confirmed by a number of studies, more effectively bring criminals and offenders to justice than public methods or release on their own recognizance. Bail bondsmen offer decreased failure to appear rates compared to those released on their own recognizance. Because bondsmen have a financial contract or obligation, their main goal is to guarantee that offenders are brought to court.

In contrast, when defendants are released on their own recognizance, it is the duty of police officers to guarantee the appearance of such offenders in court. Unfortunately, police officers have many concerns in their bureaus, and often the re-arrest of a perpetrator might be overlooked. This is why the services offered by bondsmen are so important to society. By bringing defendants and offenders to justice in court, bail bondsmen and bounty hunters safeguard the interests of society as a whole.

Bail bondsmen more effectively serve the community because of their over 50% reduction in failures to appear over those released on their own recognizance. Moreover, bail bondsmen save time and money for police precincts and communities. They decrease the amount that would need to be spent on the re-arrest and court costs imposed by an offender who has jumped bail. Bondsmen therefore exist to bring criminals and defendants to court, protecting the interests and safety of society. Without the efficiency displayed by bail bondsmen, certainly more criminals would be roaming the streets. Bail bondsmen ensure that a defendant will be present in court, and if that defendant fails to show, the bounty hunters employed by these bondsmen will find the bail jumpers, re-arrest them, and bring them to court promptly.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:21:31 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/34-why-do-bondsmen-exist/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33-getting-even/
source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:20:56 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33-getting-even/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32-holiday-arrest-no-money/
source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:20:20 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32-holiday-arrest-no-money/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/31-county-jail-release-on-time-maybe/
source]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:19:33 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/31-county-jail-release-on-time-maybe/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/30-q-whats-the-difference-between-a-public-defender-and-or-an-attorney-why-use-one-over-the-other/ A. A public defender is appointed to a defendant who does not have the financial ability to retain an attorney - this is the basic difference. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:43:29 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/30-q-whats-the-difference-between-a-public-defender-and-or-an-attorney-why-use-one-over-the-other/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/29-q-is-a-bail-bond-company-the-only-option-available-to-get-someone-out-of-jail-what-other-options-exist/ Pay the court / jail all cash. The court will refund all the money after the case is completed less any fees or outstanding fines due the court - you will be advised on these deductions.
A US Treasury Bond is also recognized by some courts.
Real Property. The court will ask for an appraisal of the property and this may take some time to acquire and submit to the court.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:43:17 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/29-q-is-a-bail-bond-company-the-only-option-available-to-get-someone-out-of-jail-what-other-options-exist/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28-q-how-long-is-a-bond-valid/ A. A bond is valid as long as the case lasts. If the case lasts for more than a year, but not more than 2 years, the bond company is entitled to another full premium (the 10% fee). The same bond continues until the case is completed. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:43:02 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28-q-how-long-is-a-bond-valid/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/27-what-does-exoneration-mean-and-when-am-i-released-from-my-financial-responsibility/ Exoneration of charges is the full release of a person from his / her court cases, which means that a person has appeared in court at all required times and has satisfied the court with regards to the final sentencing /determination on all charges. The court will then release the bail company from all financial responsibility. This means you, as the signer, will also be released from financial responsibility on the bond. Any collateral held, any monies pledged, or any property recorded for this bond will be returned. (Some fees may be deducted - each bond is different). Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:42:43 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/27-what-does-exoneration-mean-and-when-am-i-released-from-my-financial-responsibility/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/26-what-about-a-forfeiture-just-what-happens-when-a-forfeiture-occurs/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:42:31 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/26-what-about-a-forfeiture-just-what-happens-when-a-forfeiture-occurs/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25-what-is-an-or-or-release-on-own-recognizance-ror/
The type of alleged crime,
The immediate family's support (whether they live in the immediate community)
The defendant's past criminal history
The defendant's job history, both current and present, within that community.


Each defendant can provide to the assessment team various people who can speak well of them and verify his/or her status in the community. Each will be interviewed by phone. If an O.R. is granted there is no need for a bail bondsman; however, this does not dismiss the defendant from making all court appearances.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:42:05 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25-what-is-an-or-or-release-on-own-recognizance-ror/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24-what-happens-to-the-person-who-just-got-arrested/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:41:50 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24-what-happens-to-the-person-who-just-got-arrested/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23-the-basic-structure-of-a-bond/
Next, the full value of the bond needs to be collateralized. This can be accomplished in many ways and much of the time you don't have to use your house, or come up with large amounts of cash, or pledge other assets. We can also do a signature bond, which means that no collateral is taken; we've based our decision on the merits of the bond and the financial strength of the signer.

The real issue in obtaining a bond is that you talk straight to the bondsman, be realistic about your ability to pay, and understand the need to get that person to court, because you are accepting the full financial responsibility for them should they forfeit. Again, the total process may take only 30 minutes.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:41:37 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23-the-basic-structure-of-a-bond/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22-how-to-secure-a-bail-bond/
Sometimes we may ask for collateral depending upon the bond amount, the security risk of the defendant and the financial strength of the signer. It's really very simple. Remember, bailing people out of jail is all we do!

FACT: A bondsman guarantees to the court that the person will appear to face his/ or her charge.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:41:21 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22-how-to-secure-a-bail-bond/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21-how-much-does-a-bail-bond-cost/ The premium on a bail bond is ten percent of the face amount of the bond. The bonding company serves as a surety, to insure to the Court that you will appear when you are supposed to. The fee you pay to the bail bonding company is not returned. It works in much the same way as an insurance policy premium. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:40:24 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21-how-much-does-a-bail-bond-cost/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/20-how-is-bail-set/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:40:12 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/20-how-is-bail-set/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/19-who-sets-the-bail/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:39:59 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/19-who-sets-the-bail/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18-what-is-a-bail-bond/
Almost every crime are bailable offense's, exception to certain crimes like capital crimes for which the death penalty or life imprisonment may be asked.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:39:29 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18-what-is-a-bail-bond/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/17-if-you-are-not-a-u-s-citizen/ If you are arrested and you are not a U.S. Citizen, in most cases the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) will place a hold on you. The INS hold will keep you in jail whether or not you are able to make the criminal bond or your criminal case is over. The way in which your criminal case is handled can directly affect your resident status. This should be one of the main issues you discuss with your attorney. If at all possible, you should seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in immigration issues also. You may qualify for an INS bond, this will require you to post another bond and pay a new premium aside the one you paid for the criminal case. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:39:04 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/17-if-you-are-not-a-u-s-citizen/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/16-if-you-are-in-jail/ If you are in jail (incarcerated and unable to make a bond) you may hire your own attorney or if you can afford one the court will appoint an attorney to represent you. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:38:49 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/16-if-you-are-in-jail/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/15-if-you-are-free-on-bond/ In many courts if you have been able to make a bond, then you will be expected to hire an attorney to represent you. However, in some courts if you can prove that you are indigent (unable to afford to hire an attorney) then you may request that the court provide you with a court-appointed lawyer. The court itself must pay for the services of the court appointed lawyer. The cost of this representation may be passed unto you at a later time, in the form of court fees. A court appointed lawyer may be either a private lawyer who takes court appointments or may be a public defender. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:38:31 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/15-if-you-are-free-on-bond/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/14-what-to-do-if-you-have-been-arrested/ If you can make a bond (money to secure your release), then you will be released from jail, but only if you have no other holds. (A hold is a detainer placed on you by another governmental agency which requires you be held pending clearance of the hold. Example: If you had unpaid traffic tickets you could be held in jail until they were paid or you served them out with jail time.) If you cannot make a bond (or do not qualify for pretrial release), then you will remain in jail while your case is pending. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:38:15 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/14-what-to-do-if-you-have-been-arrested/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/13-inmate-electronic-monitoring-and-gps-tracking/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:37:03 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/13-inmate-electronic-monitoring-and-gps-tracking/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/12-what-is-the-difference-between-a-surety-and-a-professional-bail-bondsman/ A professional bail bondsman is a bail bondsman who pledges his or her own property / security to guarantee the bail bond to the state. A surety bail bondsman utilizes the financial strenght and backing of an admitted insurance company. A surety bail bondsman is also able to post federal court and immigration bail bonds, where a professional bail agent is not. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:36:47 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/12-what-is-the-difference-between-a-surety-and-a-professional-bail-bondsman/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/11-what-if-the-defendant-is-sentenced-to-probation/ A defendant who is convicted and given probation, is released from custody and the bail bond must be exonerated as a matter of law. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:36:29 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/11-what-if-the-defendant-is-sentenced-to-probation/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/10-does-the-bail-bond-continue-eternally-can-you-get-it-returned/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:36:08 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/10-does-the-bail-bond-continue-eternally-can-you-get-it-returned/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/9-what-is-considered-by-the-court-in-fixing-the-amount-of-the-bail/
Additionally, if public safety is an issue, the court may make an inquiry where it may consider allegations of injury to the victim, danger to the public and/or to the defendant him/her self, threats to the victim or a witness, the use of a deadly weapon, and the defendant's use or possession of controlled substances. A judge or magistrate setting bail in other than a scheduled or usual amount must state on the record the reasons and address the issue of threats made against a victim or a witness. The court must also consider evidence offered by the detained person regarding ties to the community and ability to post bond. The bail amount set by the court must be within the minimum range amount of bail that would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance. NOT the Maximum!]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:35:56 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/9-what-is-considered-by-the-court-in-fixing-the-amount-of-the-bail/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8-is-the-public-safety-issue-measured-in-the-decision-to-admit-a-defendant-to-bail-or-to-deny-bail/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:35:33 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8-is-the-public-safety-issue-measured-in-the-decision-to-admit-a-defendant-to-bail-or-to-deny-bail/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/7-is-bail-a-matter-of-right/ Although the right to bail has constitutional recognition in the prohibition against excessive bail, bail is not always a matter of right. However, with certain exceptions a defendant charged with a criminal offense shall be released on bail. Persons charged with capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption of guilt great, are excepted from the right to release on bail. However, a defendant charged with a capital crime is entitled to a bail hearing in the trial court to determine whether the facts are evident or the presumption great. A capital crime is an offense that a statute makes it potentially punishable by death or life imprisonment, even if the prosecutor / government has agreed not to seek the death penalty. It is presumed that the risk of flight of the defendant is too great when he or she is facing death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:35:20 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/7-is-bail-a-matter-of-right/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6-what-is-the-purpose-of-bail/ The purpose of bail is to assure the attendance of the defendant, when his or her appearance is required in court, whether before or after conviction. Bail is not a means of punishing a defendant, nor should there be a suggestion of revenue to the government. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:35:08 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6-what-is-the-purpose-of-bail/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5-what-if-someone-believes-that-the-money-to-be-used-to-bail-someone-out-is-the-product-of-criminal-activity/ The judge or a magistrate may stay the release of a defendant if a peace officer or prosecutor files a sworn declaration demonstrating probable cause to believe the source of the consideration, etc. was feloniously obtained, or the judge or magistrate has probable cause to believe the source was feloniously obtained. This order is commonly known as a Nebbia Hearing or Bail Sufficiency Hearing. If probable cause exists, the defendant then bears the burden by a preponderance of evidence to prove that no part of the source was so obtained. A defendant who prevails must be released on issuance of a bail bond as specified. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:34:55 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5-what-if-someone-believes-that-the-money-to-be-used-to-bail-someone-out-is-the-product-of-criminal-activity/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4-must-you-always-use-a-bail-bondsman/ In most State systems the defendant, or any other person, may deposit the sum mentioned in the bail order or bail schedule. Cash is accepted, and it is the practice for each court to adopt a written policy permitting acceptance of checks or money orders, upon conditions that tend to assure their validity, in payment of bail deposits. Some courts have a maximum amount over which a personal check will not be accepted. Depending upon the jurisdiction, government bonds may be accepted. Please note some jurisdictions will set a bail order requiring a corporate surety bond. This means that you can only post bail thru a surety bail bondsman. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:34:40 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4-must-you-always-use-a-bail-bondsman/ http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/3-when-talking-about-bail-what-do-you-mean-by-the-term-undertaking/ An undertaking is a permissible type of bail security. The taking of bail consists of a competent court accepting an undertaking of sufficient security for the appearance of the defendant, according to the terms, or the surety will pay a specified sum to the state. Corporate sureties are commonly used, and the court will accept an admitted surety insurer`s bail bond power of attorney if executed by the insurer`s licensed bail agent and issued in the insurer`s name by an authorized person. Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:34:27 +0000 http://bailbondsusa.com/forum/index.php?/topic/3-when-talking-about-bail-what-do-you-mean-by-the-term-undertaking/