The Court discussed conflicting choices on this issue from different states with the same or related constitutional provisions and concluded that money was a type of surety inside the discretion of the court. The dissenting Judge would have held that a surety is a 3rd celebration guarantor not a deposit of money and thus a right to bail with sufficient sureties meant the court docket had to accept an acceptable surety bond and could not insist on only money. Heath v. Kiger, 176 P.3d 690 (Ariz. 2008) held that a defendant released on her personal recognizance was “admitted to bail” for functions of an exception in the sufficient sureties clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Constitution provides that bail could be denied if the defendant has been arrested for a felony offense committed while admitted to bail on a separate felony charge.
Bail Bondsmen Licensing
In United States v. Mena, 2006 WL (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006) the defendant was launched on a private recognizance bond co-signed by his spouse and two others. The court docket famous that hardship on the surety was not a grounds to cut back the bond and denied her movement. During the course of the case, the Court enjoined DHS from refusing additional bonds from the surety, and the events agreed to an Alternative Dispute Resolution agreement. In spite of the ADR agreement, DHS refused to produce certain documents.
Initially, his bankruptcy trustee sought to say the cash, but after the chapter trustee withdrew his objection the courtroom discovered that there was no reason to delay and granted the Government’s movement for forfeiture. In United States v. Stathakis, 2007 WL (E.D.N.Y. October 24, 2007) the defendant posted bail of $5 million secured partially by actual property belonging to a third party. The Government alleged that the defendant violated the situations of his bond by contacting a possible witness and sought to forfeit the bond. The bond conditions included that the defendant not violate any legal guidelines, and intimidating a witness can be a violation, nevertheless it was not clear that contacting a witness could be a violation. The court refused to forfeit the bond but at the listening to clearly and explicitly warned the defendant that it was now a situation of his launch that he not contact any potential witness.
The Court rejected “FOIA” and “law enforcement” privileges asserted by DHS and ordered it to supply all paperwork in 50 information pursuant to the ADR settlement aside from ones subject to legal professional client, work product or informer’s privileges. A bail agent, bail enforcement agent, bail solicitor or common agent shall not advertise or hold himself or herself out to be a surety insurance coverage firm. (d) Pay a charge or rebate or give anything of worth to an attorney in bail bond issues, except for legal companies truly rendered. Every bail agent shall have and keep in this state a place of work accessible to the public, wherein the licensee principally conducts transactions beneath his or her license.
The trial court docket nevertheless, denied the movement on its deserves and refused to increase the a hundred and eighty day interval. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court docket and held that the pretty detailed affidavit filed by the surety detailing the efforts of its investigator to find the defendant was grounds to increase the 180 day interval. The state argued solely that the bond had been written without sufficient collateral, which the Court found to be irrelevant to the query. The Court identified that the law should avoid forfeitures and that the aim of the bond is to offer the surety an incentive to locate and return the defendant not to raise cash for the state by way of forfeitures. Fragoso v. Fell, 2005 WL (Ariz. App. May 10, 2005) held that the Arizona Constitution assure of a right to bail with “sufficient sureties” didn’t prevent the trial court docket from requiring a “money only” bond.
The Government alleged that the defendant telephoned one other witness, and the Government once more sought to forfeit the bond. The third party whose property secured the bond opposed the motion. He argued that he understood the bond to guaranty solely look, and at no time did the defendant fail to look. United States v. Billini, 2006 WL (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2006) held that a person who signed a bond as surety for the defendant was not entitled to any aid from the judgment of forfeiture. The court docket reviewed six elements to be thought of and found that none of them favored reduction other than the truth that the surety was a friend of the defendant not an expert surety.
The defendant was arrested on three felony drug expenses, launched on her own recognizance, and then arrested on additional felony drug expenses. The court famous that the Bail Reform Act and Rule forty six(f) permit circumstances aside from appearance and that the bond form itself contains additional conditions. The court nonetheless denied the Government’s movement and discharged the third get together as a result of the addition of a new situation (not even to contact witnesses) after the bond was filed materially elevated the surety’s threat without his consent. Although a family member residing with the defendant could be found to have data of such a change, here the third party guarantor was not a relative and did not reside with the defendant. United States v. Lunn, 519 F.Supp.2d one hundred forty five (D.Me. 2007) forfeited the defendant’s money bond after he fled and had not been heard from for two years.