ILNews

Dispute over bail bonds likely to produce a legislative solution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Growing tension between the bench and bail bond agents has been shoved into the spotlight at the Statehouse and could be the subject of bills introduced during the 2014 session of the Indiana General Assembly.

Central to the disagreement is the increasing use of cash bonds by judges. Courts are ordering defendants post a cash bond instead of requiring them to go to a bail bond provider and get a surety bond.

Bail bond agents charge judges are unfairly competing against their businesses by accepting only cash bonds and issuing those bonds at a significantly lower dollar amount. The motivation behind the move toward cash bonds, bail agents claim, is courts are using the money as revenue to support their operations.

The bail agents have found a sympathetic ear in Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.
 

steele-brent2012-mug Steele

“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 has added the bail surety issue to the summer study agenda of the Legislature’s Commission on Courts. In addition, he has hinted he may author a bail bill during the next session.


earline Rogers

His colleague, Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, also has plans to introduce her own bail bill next January.

The inferences made by the bail bond agents drew a strong response from one judge, which may indicate the opposition to come.

“When they say we’re using cash bonds to fund court programs, that’s absolutely false,” said Hendricks Superior Judge Robert Freese. “It is not a slush fund.”

Adding to the agenda

During the 2013 legislative session, Rogers authored Senate Bill 425, which, in part, would have allowed counties to retain a portion of the funds they received from bail bond forfeitures.

Bail bond agents in Rogers’ district had approached her, asserting the courts were not forfeiting bonds and that money was going uncollected. She proposed funneling some of the forfeiture dollars back to the counties as an incentive to judges to go after those funds. Also, to streamline the process, she shortened the time a bail bond provider has to present a defendant who failed to appear from 365 days to 180 days.


freese Freese

“All I’m saying is, if there’s a percent of this uncollected money that’s out there and counties can use it to deal with the criminal justice system, which is causing a burden for the finances of the county, then we ought to find a way to use it,” Rogers said.

After SB 425 died in the Committee on Corrections and Criminal Law, Rogers authored Senate Resolution 69, which asked the Legislative Council to assign the topic of surety bail to the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Committee for study during the 2013 legislative interim. When the topic went unassigned, Rogers approached Steele.

The Republican has seen bail issues pop up only a few times during his 17 years in the Legislature and thought the topic deserved some attention. He focused the commission’s first foray into bail bonds on the different types of bonds being used, an area he is particularly bothered by.

Steele compared the use of cash bonds to the days when Indiana only had fault divorces. Consequently, couples who simply wanted to end their marriage had to offer the court an accepted reason, which usually was that the husband had abused the wife.

“… It was a lie under oath that the bar association and everybody fostered and did,” Steele said.

He charged Indiana has a similarly false system with bail bonds. Current practice, Steele said, is for the judges to write a cash bond to cover the costs because the courts know many defendants will not be able to pay their fines and fees.

“It’s a way we grease the gears to make the system pay, and it’s wrong,” Steele said. “I think the pure system, the purest, would be the judge sets the bail and that defendant ought to have the right to post whatever kind of bail he wants to. If he wants to do surety, fine; if he wants to do cash, fine; if he wants property, fine.”

Cash or surety

Pointing to his phone, Jim Degan, president of the Indiana Surety Bail Agents Association, Inc., outlined the bail bond agents’ arguments against the current system.

Every Friday, Degan requires the defendants he has bonded to report in, telling him where they are and what they are doing. He, like most bail bond agents, monitors the defendants, reminds them of their court dates and, if a defendant does abscond, works to find them.

Conversely, when a judge issues a cash bond, the court collects that money and no one follows through with ensuring the defendant appears again, Degan said.

Freese defended his practice of issuing cash bonds. If the prosecutor never files the case or the case is dismissed, the full amount will be returned to the defendant. If the defendant is convicted, then the funds will go toward covering the court costs, fines and fees.

Whether the bond is returned or used to help cover court costs, the defendant should then have money to pay household expenses, the judge said. People are spending too much on the justice system, and the consequence is they then do not have enough money to meet their other financial obligations, he added.

With bail surety bonds, Freese explained, the 10 percent the defendant pays is kept by the bail agent regardless of what happens. The defendant will have to find more money to pay any fines, fees and court costs that are assessed.

“That’s correct,” Degan said, “because it is a premium like you pay your automobile insurance or your homeowner’s insurance. The judge feels that the money should be used to pay court costs and everything else. We’re not allowing the defendants to pay with the surety. There should be some suffering and consequences for their actions.”

In Freese’s 13 years on the bench, he said he has never had anyone fail to appear that resulted in a forfeiture. Often defendants have made a simple error, like getting the court date wrong, and are not intentionally trying to skip bail.

Consequently, the push by bail bond agents to get the courts to go after uncollected forfeitures confused Freese. To him, that runs counter to the agents’ argument against giving money to the courts to use for judicial programs.

Moreover, Freese said, the courts are not responsible for claiming money. Such actions would turn the courts into collection agencies.

Degan maintained the judges who do not forfeit bonds deprive the common school fund and the sheriff’s pension fund of money. The funds from cash bonds sitting in county coffers puts the county at risk if the Indiana State Board of Accounts runs an audit and demands the money, he said.

To resolve the differences between bail bond agents and judges, the Legislature is going to have to get involved, Degan said. However, any solutions offered should be carefully considered.

“We’ve got a great statute,” he said. “It just needs to be tweaked a little bit. We do not need to do a house-wide clean up.”•

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT