[BailBondsUSA]

In Re Bond Forfeiture in Pima County, 93 P.3d 1084 (Ariz. App. 2004) affirmed the trial court’s judgment forfeiting the entire bond even though the defendant had been deported to Mexico. The court noted that: (1) the surety assumes the risk the defendant will not appear; (2) the surety could easily have ascertained that there was an INS “hold” on the defendant who, in fact, gave his only address as General Delivery, Nogales, Sonora, Mexico; (3) the surety did nothing to try to prevent the defendant’s deportation, locate him in Mexico or secure his return for trial; and (4) there was no evidence the defendant attempted to return for trial.

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