Bail bond issues dominate Commission on Courts meeting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although charged with only one duty, the Commission on Courts has added the controversial topic of bail bonds to its summer study agenda.

At its first meeting Thursday afternoon, the commission heard testimony from several bail bond agents as well as the views from Indiana sheriffs and judges. The focus of much of the meeting was on the use of cash bonds over commercial surety bonds and whether more state courts are requiring cash bonds in order to increase their revenues.

Bail bond providers’ comments ranged from details about their services, namely the monitoring they do once their clients are released from custody, to charges that by ordering cash bonds, the state has an unfair advantage over private bail bond businesses.

Commission members repeatedly asked for statistics and data, but the witnesses said over and over statewide figures are not available.

The commission turned its attention the bail bonds at the request of Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary. She introduced a bill during the 2013 session of the Indiana General Assembly that would have enabled counties to retain a portion of funds they received from bail forfeitures.

The bill died in committee, but the Commission on Courts chairman Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, brought the broad issue of bail bonds before his group for further study. After the meeting, Steele said he is not happy with the current situation of courts demanding cash bonds.

“I think that the defendant ought to have the right to post the surety bond if he wants to,” Steele said. “For a judge to say, ‘we’re just going to do cash only,’ I don’t agree with that.”

Steele said he intends to continue the discussion about bail bonds at the commission’s upcoming meetings.

Before it began talking about bail bonds, the commission opened its meeting by reviewing the request from Vanderburgh County for a new magistrate in the Circuit Court. This was the only issue assigned to the commission by the Legislative Council.

Vanderburgh Superior Judge David Kiely was the sole witness to testify on the need for a new magistrate.

“The demand is so great, we don’t have someone to fill in when there are problems,” he told the commission. “… We’re making it work and we’ve been making it work for a long time, but it’s extremely difficult. I think with another judicial officer, we could move cases quicker.”

Steele delayed a vote on the request until all commission members were present. Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis; Reps. Kathy Kreag Richardson, R-Noblesville, and Greg Steuerwald, R-Danville; and Allen County Commissioner Theresa Brown were not at the meeting.




Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?