ILNews

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.


 



 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT