What does it cost you to not join your local, state and national bail agent associations?

Posted on by
Reply

Near the close of the first full day of the PBUS (Professional Bail Agents of the United States) winter conference they hold a happy hour mixer and new member reception. I have been a member of PBUS for many years, so the Las Vegas cocktail party is a little less awkward for me than perhaps it once was. I’ve learned that you’re among friends who speak the same language you do and understand this business we’re in. I really enjoy being in a room full of bail agents from all across the United States.

Michael Hansen, Sr., a satisfied member of PBUSMichael Hansen, Sr., a satisfied member of PBUS

Anyhow, I spotted a guy that I have never met before but had noticed earlier in the PBUSGeneral Session featuring Michèle Stuart of Jag Investigations. Stuart had presented an all-day interactive breakout session on Internet Profiling and Intelligence Gathering. I asked this stranger what he thought of the class. He answered by pulling out his cell phone to show me a photo of a very unhappy looking guy sitting in the back seat of a car. He took a look at all the ribbons hanging off of my PBUS name badge. Concluding that I must be active with the association, he said, “You people need to raise the registration fees.”

Here is what happened. This agent, Michael Hansen, Sr., — like every other bail agent I spoke with — loved Michèle Stuart’s presentation. Even though it took up almost an entire day, most attendees were left with the feeling that it could have been longer still. Stuart really knows her stuff. And her stuff is of great value to us bail agents.

Michael Hansen, Sr., took notes during the class and paid particular attention when Stuart talked about how photos on the internet often contain “hidden” information which may well include geo-location on a subject. She taught us how you can often learn precisely where a photo was taken.

Hansen didn’t need to hear this part twice. He and his son, Mike Jr., have been seeking a fugitive on a $20, 000 bond they posted in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Using what they learned in the first breakout session of the PBUS winter conference, they had their bond skip in custody within three hours of the class.

This is why Michael Hansen, Sr., joked about PBUS raising their registration fees. This is also why his first PBUS conference will surely not be his last. What he learned directly resulted in the apprehension and surrender of his fugitive. This took place within three hours of learning the information in the PBUS class.  I didn’t catch a bond skip, but now if I need help in York, Pennsylvania I know who to call for help. And I also learned a thing or two (or 50) in Michèle Stuart’s class.

If you are in the bail bond business, maybe you should be making arrangements to join and support the PBUS. The summer conference will be in Biloxi this July. How much will it cost you to miss it?

  via - bailbondsman.com

Related Posts

Bail Agents Show Solidarity in San Francisco – Update on Buffin v. San Francisco

Posted on by
Reply

Below is a statement from Jeff Clayton, Policy Director for the American Bail Coalition, on the latest results of the US District Court hearing on Buffin v. San Francisco.

January 26, 2016
Statement on Motions Hearing, Buffin

Today, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California conducted a hearing on several motions filed in Buffin v. San Francisco, a lawsuit challenging the use of money bail schedules and by extension the American Bail System. In the hearing, Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected the Plaintiffs’ initial filings because the documents were insufficient in as much they failed to state a claim which would warrant granting any relief whatsoever.

In rejecting the claims made by the Plaintiffs as insufficient, Judge Gonzalez Rogers granted the City of San Francisco’s motion for a more definite statement of matters contained in the complaint, and required the Plaintiffs to file a new complaint within 30 days or otherwise face dismissal.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers also denied Plaintiffs’ motions both for preliminary injunction and class certification. Both were denied due to the complete lack of merit in the Plaintiffs’ initial complaint. She also granted the State of California’s motion to dismiss the State as a defendant based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In a clear expression of frustration, Judge Gonzalez Rogers pressed the Plaintiffs’ attorneys on their theory of the case, continually saying she understood the big picture argument that Plaintiffs were attempting to make but did not understand the legal analysis that would allow them to get the relief they were seeking. Due to the general and unclear theory being advanced by the Plaintiffs, at one point the Judge indicated she did not think there was a valid legal theory upon which relief could be granted, and even went as far as to inquire of Plaintiffs’ counsel whether they had ever practiced criminal law in California or understood how the California criminal court system functioned.

In a show of solidarity, representatives from the American Bail Coalition, California Bail Agents Association, and the Golden State Bail Association attended the hearing together. The California Bail Agents Association’s motion to intervene was denied, but it was only denied because it was premature—premature because the Judge said the initial complaint was so deficient that there was presently no live controversy in which CBAA’s attorneys might engage. CBAA’s motion is still pending, but will only be taken up by the Court if Plaintiffs submit a new complaint that overcomes the deficiencies indicated by Judge and which survives a motion to dismiss.

While this is not the end of this case, today’s hearing is a win because the Plaintiffs’ legal theory finally met its first test on the merits, which it did not survive.

via – https://www.aiasurety.com/home/news/CompanyNews/aia-company-news-for-the-year-2015.aspx/articles/417

Related Posts

Class-Action Suit Against San Francisco Seeks to End Use of Cash Bail System

Posted on by
Reply

A federal class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges San Francisco’s bail system is unconstitutional.

The Washington, D.C.-based civil rights organization bringing the lawsuit is hopeful that it could not only topple the “money bail” system in San Francisco, but also across the state.

“State law actually requires City and County of San Francisco to use the generic bail schedule,” said Phil Telfeyan, head of Equal Justice Under Law. “Our lawsuit is focused on San Francisco, but the impact could be broader.”

‘People are faced with this coercive choice: Go into tremendous amounts of debt, plead guilty to a crime you may not have committed or wait in jail and lose everything that’s dear and meaningful in your life.’
Chesa Boudin
San Francisco Deputy Public Defender
The suit (read below) was initially brought on behalf of two women arrested in San Francisco this week, but Telfeyan is asking the court to certify a class action on behalf of “all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to Defendants’ fixed bail schedule who are or who will become in the custody of the City and County of San Francisco.”

Prosecutors discharged the cases against both named plaintiffs — Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson — meaning they were both released and aren’t currently facing charges, said Telfeyan and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

Buffin was arrested Monday under suspicion of grand theft. She stayed in jail for two days until her case was discharged. Patterson was arrested Tuesday under suspicion of assault with force causing great bodily injury. Her case was also discharged — a matter of hours after she paid a bail agent $1,500, or 1 percent of her $150,000 bail.

Because she made that deal, she owes the bail agent a full 10 percent of the bond, or $15,000.

“Had she been able to wait another six hours or 12 hours in jail,” Deputy Public Defender Chesa Boudin said, “she wouldn’t have had to go into debt. The problem that we see in Ms. Patterson’s case and in so many of my clients’ cases is that people are faced with this coercive choice: Go into tremendous amounts of debt, plead guilty to a crime you may not have committed or wait in jail and lose everything that’s dear and meaningful in your life.”

A district attorney’s spokesman said prosecutors are awaiting further investigation into both cases in order to pursue charges.

The president of the California Bail Agents Association called the lawsuit “misleading.”

“We’ve already seen in California the crime rates have gone up,” said Maggie Kreins, who is proprietor of Maggie’s Bail Bonds in Long Beach in addition to heading the association. “It’s getting scary out there, and they’re making it so nobody’s going to be held accountable for anything anymore.”

Kreins said bail agents have a proven record of “bringing people back to court, and bringing justice to victims.”

“When these individuals don’t go to court, who’s going to go look for them?” she said. “The taxpayers are going to have to pay two or three times to arrest the same person.”

But in San Francisco, there’s widespread agreement among law enforcement leaders for doing away with the “money bail” system.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi filed a declaration in support of the lawsuit and joined Telfeyan and Boudin in announcing it. He said between 75 and 85 percent of San Francisco’s jail population is pretrial at any given time. About one-third are there because they can’t afford $5,000 bail.

Mirkarimi said if people are not a safety or flight risk but are nonetheless taken from their families and their jobs, “this furthers the destruction and ruination of people and families in San Francisco.”

Former Chief Deputy Sheriff Vicki Hennessy — who is challenging Mirkarimi for the top job — said in an email to KQED that “the current system is inherently unfair.”

District Attorney George Gascón said he’s been working for years to replace the monetary bail, “not only in San Francisco but more broadly, hopefully around the state.”

“Money bail doesn’t necessarily deal with risk,” he said. “You can have people that are very risky but are financially capable of posting bail, and they’re going to get released. And you’ve got people on the other end that may not be a risk, but they may not have the monetary ability to post bail, and they remain in custody for days, weeks and sometimes longer.”

Gascón said he’s been working with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to develop a predictive tool that could inform judges about the likelihood any given arrestee would reoffend, hurt someone or fail to show up for his or her court date. He hopes to introduce the system into San Francisco courts by early next year. He said he wasn’t in support of ditching “money bail” without a comprehensive system to replace it.

“Just simply taking money without a validated risk assessment tool would be a horrible mistake,” he said.

via – http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/10/29/class-action-suit-against-san-francisco-seeks-to-end-use-of-cash-bail-system

Ask HPD: Bailing someone out of jail

Posted on by
Reply

Generic Story Image

Q. How do I bail someone out?

A. First, call the Central Receiving Division at 723-3284 to make sure the arrestee is still in custody at the Alapai main station. Then find out their bail amount. Make sure you come with the exact amount in cash. No checks or credit cards will be accepted, and no change will be given.

When you come to the station, head to the Adult Bail out door, located on Hotel Street. You will also be asked to sign a form before the arrestee can be released.
If the arrestee you are bailing out is not at the Alapai station, you can call our other substations. Their numbers are listed on our website.

Don’t forget to email us: askhpd@honolulupd.org

Or visit our web site and social media pages:
Visit our website
Send us a message on Facebook
Send us a message on Twitter
Check out our video on YouTube
Message us on Google+

Ask HPD will also air on KHON2 News morning show, Wake Up 2Day.

 

 

Accountability Matters: Commercial Bail is For Profit and Proud of It

Posted on by
Reply

Money WorksA couple weeks back we wrote an article on the surprisingly controversial topic of “MONEY” in the criminal justice system and how it is being used by some in the public sector pretrial community like a Scarlett letter to shame the commercial bail industry. Unfortunately this argument is used all too often and it is an argument that in my opinion has no merit or relevance to the issues of jail overcrowding and bail reform.

The commercial bail profession is exactly that…a profession. It employs tens of thousands of men and women all over the country. And yes…those people earn a salary for providing a service. Is that a horrible thing? Is it wrong for the tax accounting industry to charge a fee for preparing someone’s taxes? Is it wrong for your insurance agent to earn a commission from State Farm or Allstate for selling and managing your homeowners or car insurance policy? Is it wrong for your dry cleaner to charge you for cleaning your clothes? Last time I remember, these types of financial transactions were seen as valuable services and not frowned upon as for-profit money hungry business owners taking advantage of poor unaware consumers.

That being said, why is there so much criticism of the commercial bail industry for getting paid for the service that they provide? That service…facilitating the pretrial release of a qualified defendant with the assurance that the defendant will make ALL scheduled court appearances…not just the convenient ones, but ALL of them. It only seems logical that if a private for profit entity can accomplish those two tasks, facilitating release and assuring appearance at court, that those in the criminal justice system would support and applaud the efforts of such a business, as these business are difficult to run, so having conferences is important for organization and the use of a conference av hire equipment can be essential for these conferences to go great.

. Add to that, the ability of this private for-profit industry to accomplish these tasks more efficiently and more effectively than any other form of pretrial release at NO COST to the counties, and the criticism of the commercial bail industry becomes even more mind boggling.

Before I go further, I think it is important to point out a very important fact and one that is so painfully obvious that it is almost laughable that I have to mention it….public sector pretrial services employees DO NOT WORK FOR FREE. Yep…every pretrial services employee gets paid to do their job. In fact, everyone at the Pretrial Justice Institute gets a salary too. Everyone at NAPSA gets a salary. Everyone at the VERA Institute gets one. Just like you, me and everyone else, they do a job for greenbacks. In some pretrial programs, like those managed by the VERA Institute in New Orleans, the employees and executives of VERA make salaries (some over $100,000 a year) that are so large they dwarf those of some of New Orleans true essential public sector employees like school teachers, police officers and fire-fighters. All the while, pointing the finger at others for making money for doing their job. And as much as they might not want to admit this fact about themselves or even talk about it, it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

However, in the eyes of some public sector proponents getting paid or “funded” as they put it is a non-issue because they a providing FREE services to the public. Newsflash to those in the public sector pretrial community that think this way…Nothing is FREE. Everything has a cost, whether you want to accept, ignore it or spin it. Asking someone to purchase an insurance policy to be released from jail has a cost just as does letting someone out of jail for “FREE” (without an insurance policy guaranteeing their return) has a cost. The difference is that the insurance policy is paid by those that are close to the defendant and vouch for them, and so called FREE release through a pretrial program is paid for …or shall we say “funded” by taxpayer dollars. And by the way, notice that one of the options is actually an “insurance policy.” An insurance policy guaranteeing the return of that defendant to court… and the other option has no guarantee. Which method are you more comfortable with as a taxpaying member of the public? That is a no brainer in my opinion.

Money aside, it is unfortunate and to be honest, a little scary that so much of the debate around pretrial release is not about effectiveness and not about efficiency. It has been warped by some in the pretrial community into a discussion about profit and money, and the leading premise being sold by some public sector pretrial proponents in that discussion is that both are evil, unfair and unnecessary. All the while, these groups spend over $100,000,000 in taxpayer funds annually ($58 million alone in Washington DC) running their programs, paying their employees and letting defendants out of jail for FREE ) remember with NO GUARANTEE OF RETURN and no accountability by those that are responsible for ensuring those people make it to court.

I would like to propose that instead of focusing on profits and non-profits, that the pretrial/bail reform debate focus on things that are more important. Things like effectiveness. Things like efficiency. Things like accountability. There is no shortage of data or research that answers those questions. There have been private research studies, government funded research studies, educational research studies done, and they have the same conclusion. Financially secured release is the most effective way to ensure that those released pretrial show up for court. Unfortunately for the public sector pretrial community, none of that data generated in those independent studies support their approach. That is why we never hear them mention it. That is why it doesn’t enter the conversation. When you are dealing with issues like public safety and the criminal justice system shouldn’t that be the thrust of the discussion? Shouldn’t those things be the foundation of the solution? Letting more and more people out of jail more quickly and for FREE in order to be “fair” is not the answer. It only exacerbates the problem and teaches those the break the law that there will be no accountability and no real punishment for their actions. And rewarding bad behavior in this way only leads to one thing…more bad behavior.

If some of those in the pretrial community want to have a debate about money and the cost of business, the commercial bail industry is ready to have that discussion all day long. Because the commercial bail industry operates at NO COST to the county while public sector pretrial programs operate at significant cost. When all is said and done, the reality is that everyone pays and everyone gets paid and it’s time for the pot to stop calling the kettle black. It is time for us all to put real thought into making the criminal justice system work as effectively and as fairly as possible by using the tools and processes that work best.

via – www.expertbail.com

Related Posts