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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT