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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT