Police shootings prompt questions

A spate of police-involved shootings this summer — two of them fatal — has raised questions about procedures and training at the Honolulu Police Department.

“We don’t have the death penalty, so no matter how reprehensible the activity the person is engaging in, we do not summarily execute people,” said University of Hawaii at Manoa criminology professor Meda Chesney-Lind. “The police have to reassure us all that that is not what is happening. We can learn from these incidents so that they won’t be repeated.”

In back-to-back cases a week apart, drivers in their 50s were killed in close range by multiple shots from July 24 to Aug. 6.

In each case, the Honolulu Police Department called the slain men murder suspects. The shooters — police officers — were stopping a threat, they said.

Chesney-Lind and other Honolulu criminology experts are decrying the killings, questioning the police version of events, and calling for more information, openness and accountability from HPD.

When shootings have occurred, top HPD officials have routinely defended the actions of officers — even before internal investigations have begun.

The department has declined numerous requests from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser for interviews on the criticisms leveled against it, providing only email responses to some questions about the following three shootings:

» July 24: A police sergeant shot at a man driving a stolen car on Red Hill, but the man got away. Police identified the man a month later as the same man shot and killed by police Aug. 6.

» July 30: A six-year HPD veteran shot and killed Richard Nelson, 52, of Manoa, on Kuhio Avenue. Nelson, drunk at the time, tried to flee in his car and nearly struck the officer who was investigating him for rear-ending a bus.

» Aug. 6: James Koa Pickard Jr., 51, was seated in a stolen car parked at a Pacific Palisades house when three officers approached to arrest him. Police said he drove toward an officer in front, hit a police car, and reversed toward two officers behind. He then drove forward toward one of the officers, and two officers fired seven shots through the side and front windows at Pickard, who died at the scene. The officers have 18, 11 and four years of service, but it’s unclear who fired the shots.

“Our goal is never to have a fatality, but sometimes we are put in situations where we have to use lethal force,” HPD Chief Louis Kealoha said at a news conference following the Pacific Palisades shooting. He warned the public that failure to comply with an officer’s command to stop may place the officer’s life and the community in danger.

Officers are taught to aim for “center mass” (chest area) to stop the threat, he said, calling the use of deadly force in the case appropriate.

An accidental shooting occurred on Aug. 12, just one week after the Pacific Palisades incident when a police lieutenant at a 7-Eleven store in Pearl City approached a stolen car with his gun drawn. The lieutenant was knocked to the ground, and was seriously injured when the driver reversed with his car door open.

 

POLICE POLICY ON WHEN AN OFFICER MAY SHOOT
The Honolulu Police Department provided the following information: 

» An officer will draw his weapon if he may have to use it.
» An officer may use deadly force to protect his life or the lives of others.
» Under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for an officer to fire at a fleeing suspect. For example, if the suspect is armed and shooting or otherwise endangering the lives of others.

 

The gun accidentally discharged. Police later said the officer was dragged and opened an attempted murder investigation. The driver and his passenger fled, and were never caught.

The officer received injuries that were not life-threatening injuries and remains on injured leave.

Are officers trained to get out of the way of a fleeing vehicle? What is the procedure? Those are questions Chesney-Lind said police should have to answer.

“By standing in front of automobiles, that may not be the best way to handle the situation,” she said. “This could either get an officer mowed down by a vehicle or we get officers pulling guns and shooting at people in vehicles.”

Chesney-Lind said criminalizing people killed in police encounters, such as using the term “murder suspect” is verbal gymnastics.

“We don’t have the death penalty for drug offenses or car theft or finding someone in a stolen car,” or just being drunk as in the case of Gregory Gordon, the soldier killed in Waikiki surrounded by police cars in 2013, she said.

Chesney-Lind called for a thorough and public review, and said Honolulu should have an independent review commission.

HPD needs to be answerable to the public and the process should be more transparent, Chesney-Lind said.

In an op-ed piece in the Star-Advertiser on Aug. 17, David Johnson, a UH professor of sociology, said Honolulu police have shot and killed eight people in the last five years (or 1.6 per year), which is, per capita, about double the national average of “justifiable killings” by police.

In 11 years — from 2004 to 2014 — Honolulu police shot and killed 13 people, an average of a little over one a year. This year, two were killed in eight months.

Part of the problem is the department is not providing training in how to handle “in-your-face confrontation,” said Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University. Psychological training should be taught in a college environment, she said.

“The chief of police has always wanted to raise the civil service requirement for police officers from a high school to at least an associate’s degree, with specifics on learning community policing,” said Goldsborough, who was a professor to Kealoha.

In the 1930s, she said, “police walked on the street in major cities with no guns, with only billy sticks,” adding, “Now they have to wear a vest to protect themselves from being shot. Something is wrong.”

She blames easy access to guns, including for people with criminal intent.

“(Police) are reacting to a situation because it developed around them,” she said. “He’s fearful, with no psychological, sociological training, and he doesn’t know how to circumvent this kind of situation.”

During a news conference after the Kuhio Avenue shooting, police Maj. Lester Hite, commander of the Criminal Investigation Division, said: “It’s a split-second decision. Officers make them all the time. At that time, the officer determined the best choice of action was to fire.”

Police said after every major incident, the details are reviewed to see whether changes should be made to training or in other areas.

Former police officer Aaron Hunger, who says police are taught how to word reports to protect the police department from liability in police shootings by writing: “‘He drove at me, so I shot him five times in the chest,’ rather than, ‘He fled from me, and I shot at him five times in the chest.’”

Hunger, who was a Miami Dade (Fla.) police officer in the 1990s, is a criminal justice instructor at the University of Hawaii-West Oahu. He asked his students which statement best describes a video clip of an officer chasing Nelson in Waikiki before fatally shooting him: 1) The driver appears to be driving at the officer; or 2) The driver appears to be fleeing from the officer.

Of the 32 students, 31 thought the officer’s use of force appeared inappropriate, and that the driver appeared to be fleeing from the officer, not driving at the officer.

That officer was investigating Nelson for rear-ending a bus with his car, and was stopped on Kuhio Avenue when the officer spotted an open liquor container inside and he refused to get out.

Police said Nelson made a U-turn on busy Kuhio Avenue, hitting a tree and nearly striking pedestrians.

The officer pursued him on foot. After again refusing to comply, Nelson reversed his car, and nearly hit the officer, police said. That’s when the officer fired five shots through Nelson’s open window, and struck him in the torso multiple times, apparently at close range.

With no one controlling it, the Jetta sped down Kuhio, losing its engine block and ended up on the sidewalk.

In October 2013, the “driving at police” allegation got a 35-year-old burglary suspect arrested on five counts of first-degree attempted murder for striking and injuring officers in his attempt to flee in a truck stolen from a home near Alvah Scott Elementary School in Aiea. Police shot him, but he survived.

Prosecutors charged the suspect, Amery Kahale-Sugi­mura, with property and drug crimes, but not attempted murder.

The police shooting in Ferguson, Mo., of an unarmed African-American teen underscores a soaring trend of violence against the public in police departments across the country, according to Trends Journal publisher Gerald Celente.

A recent analysis in the publication — “Police Violence Against the Public Soars” — outlines incidents where “trigger-happy” cops showed no restraint in using excessive firepower and violence for simple acts like routine traffic stops.

But unlike the Missouri teen shooting, there was no public outcry and no parents who spoke publicly to ask questions about the deaths in Honolulu. The dead men were in their 50s and their parents are either elderly or deceased.

Irmagard Pickard said her family has been reluctant to speak out about the police shooting that killed her son in the Pacific Palisades case, in part because the media had dredged up so much of his criminal past, as far back as nearly 30 years ago.

“We just want to know the name of the police officers (who shot her son),” she said. “Their family and they need prayers also.”

James Pickard left behind a son, three daughters, seven grandchildren, as well as his parents and two sisters.

Police said the man shot at by a police sergeant July 24 in Red Hill fleeing in a stolen car was Pickard, after learning his identity about a month later.

Richard Nelson’s mother, his only living parent, declined to speak with the Star-Advertiser about his death on July 30, when he was shot multiple times by a police officer.

via - www.staradvertiser.com

Inside the Wild, Shadowy, and Highly Lucrative Bail Industry

THE LARGEST ANNUAL GATHERING of bail bondsmen in the country—the convention of the Professional Bail Agents of the United States, or PBUS—was slotted between Dunkin’ Donuts and Elk Camp 2013 at the Mirage Resort and Casino, a tall, shiny structure shaped like an open book and set against replicas of the Colosseum and Eiffel Tower on Las Vegas’ Strip, while if you want to visit an online casino there are options like the olympic kingsway casinos that are great for this. The sidewalk out front was littered with cards bearing phone numbers and pictures of naked women. In the courtyard, flames licked the late-winter air to the rhythm of a tribal drum every hour, on the hour. A sign at the entrance announced that the casino’s dolphin just had a baby and we would be able to see it soon. As I walked through the smoky slots area I saw a man with a PBUS lanyard doing an extremely forced I’m-having-fun dance with his assistant while a casino employee showed them how to play the one-armed bandit. It was a bit of a letdown from what I’d been anticipating—all-night blackjack sessions with bondsmen and bounty hunters telling tales from the street over stiff drinks. I’d even grown a mustache for the event, thinking it would help me blend in a little—bondsmen have mustaches, don’t they?

Not really, I discovered when I arrived at the welcome reception. “So how do you like the industry?” I asked a clean-shaven man in a shiny gray suit who looked to be about 30. “I like it,” he said buoyantly, taking a sip of his beer. “Sometimes you get real lucky.” He told me about the first bond he ever wrote in the cheerful, blow-by-blow manner of a poker player recounting a winning hand. A college student went out drinking and crashed his car into a fence, he explained. “So him and a girlfriend both get kinda messed up.” He beamed. I was confused—was I to realize that this was a boon? He quickly explained that normally, bail for a DUI was $5,000, but since it involved an injury, the amount automatically jumped to $100,000. When he told the driver’s mom she would have to pay him a $10,000 fee to get her son out of jail, she said, “No problem. Here’s my credit card number.” He smiled and took a sip from his beer, nodding happily. “I couldn’t believe it.”

The business model is pretty straightforward. Say you get arrested for drug possession and wind up in jail. Shortly afterward you appear before a judge who decides whether to let you out before your trial (only people charged with the most heinous crimes are denied bail altogether) and, if so, what collateral it will take to make sure you don’t bolt. For drug possession, let’s say the judge sets bail at $30,000. If you have that kind of money, you can give it to the court and get it back when you show up for trial. If you fail to appear, you lose it. If you don’t have that much cash, you have two choices: sit in jail and wait for your trial, or hire a bail bondsman. To the bondsman you pay a nonrefundable fee—usually 10 percent of the bail—and he promises the court that you will show up for trial. If you don’t, he will owe the court $30,000.

The man in the gray suit continued: “I write real A+ stuff,” he said. “You make the most money off domestic violence, cuz the bail’s high. Domestic violence is $50,000. You figure that’s at least $5,000″ in the bank. “And a lot of times those cases don’t even get filed—” His eyes drifted toward the middle distance behind me. I turned around to see Dog the Bounty Hunter entering the room, cameras swirling around him. His blond mullet flowed down the shoulders of his flame-embroidered leather jacket. His sunglasses sat on top of his pink forehead. People edged in for handshakes and pictures. They all knew his A&E reality show, in which he kicked in doors and pepper-sprayed fugitives for bail bondsmen around the country. Dog, like many bounty hunters, was a freelance contractor, hired by bondsmen to track down clients who skipped court. He was a private policeman of sorts, empowered by the state to bust into the houses of people out on bond, make arrests, and detain people—things bounty hunters get to do with minimal, if any, training and regulation.

Dog’s show was suspended for a few months in 2007 after his son sold theNational Enquirer recorded phone conversation in which Dog said he couldn’t work for him unless he broke up with his black girlfriend. It wasn’t because she was black, Dog said, but “because we use the word ‘nigger’ sometimes here. I’m not gonna take a chance ever in life of losing everything I’ve worked for for 30 years because some fucking nigger heard us say ‘nigger’ and turned us in to theEnquirer magazine.” Dog was the star guest of the convention.

For starters, he said, all bail agents should require clients’ Facebook and email passwords.

Hundreds of bondsmen were here to learn the tricks of the trade. In one workshop, the president of the association gave an impassioned speech about the IRS—”Don’t even think about talking to those folks. They are not your friend.” In another, a private investigator schooled us in the art of catching skips. For starters, he said, all bail agents should require clients’ Facebook and email passwords. Another tip was to maintain fake Facebook pages and friend clients to keep track of them. The instructor has 11 faux personas. (Stuck in traffic? “Update the page where you are a 14-year-old girl.” Waiting for a meeting? “Update the one where you are a 97-year-old guy.”) If your client has an iPhone, a.k.a. “snitch in your pocket,” require her Apple ID so you can trace her anywhere. And don’t forget about Google—you can subpoena them for your clients’ records.

He taught us about companies that drive around scanning license plates. They market themselves to repo companies,but if a bondsman is looking for someone, he can give them a license number and they’ll tell him where the car has been and when, for $7 a hit. He also said we should all think about getting drones. “I use a drone in my business…I can control it from my iPad. Guy’s got a big, long driveway and a barking dog? No problem.” He made a little buzzing sound as his hand mimicked a drone zipping up the driveway and taking pictures of license plates. “I keep this thing in the trunk of my car.”

It wasn’t hard for Edmund Langevin III to become a bondsman. All it took was five days of classes and $400; that, plus a $150 firearms class, gave him the power to make arrests and use a gun on the job. Bennie Roughton saw that power in action in October 2012, when Langevin showed up at his house in Chesapeake, Virginia. He was looking for a man named Jason Turner who lived across the street. Had he seen him? Roughton hadn’t; he was friendly enough with Turner but didn’t know him well and thought him “a little weird.”

Langevin had bailed Turner out after he and his wife stole a washing machine from a former landlady they had a gripe with. It was the kind of thing that had left Turner with a long rap sheet of petty crimes. As a condition of bail in the washing machine case, Turner had to meet regularly with his parole officer. He hadn’t shown up for the most recent one, so Langevin went to look for him.

Later that day, Roughton was out walking his dog when he saw Langevin jump out of his vehicle with his gun drawn, running toward three guys sitting in a car in the driveway of Turner’s house. “He never announced himself, he didn’t say who he was,” Roughton said. (In a police statement later on, Langevin said that he did.) The men jumped out and ran. “If you were with me and you see a guy running at you with a gun out,” Turner would later ask, “are you gonna run? I’m scared of my life.” Roughton saw Turner’s hands go up, as though in surrender, then the gun went off—”Pow!” He heard Turner shout, “Motherfucker, you shot me!”

“I wished I’d had my camera and videoed it,” Roughton said. “It was something off of Dog the Bounty Hunter, except stupid. Dog woulda never done that.”

Turner was unarmed, but Langevin shot him in the stomach. Langevin would later tell police Turner had grabbed for his gun, but in his police statement Roughton said that was not what he saw. Turner denied it too. “This is a kill shot,” Turner said when I met him, pointing to the scar across his stomach. “He didn’t shoot me in the knee, he shot me in the fucking stomach…When you shoot a deer, you shoot him in the stomach and he walks into the woods and dies and you go get him.” The bondsman kept Turner pinned to the ground until the police showed up and disarmed him. Turner went to the hospital, then to jail for missing his parole meeting. Langevin went home.
THERE HAS LONG BEEN A VIGILANTE quality to the bail system—the business itself is a creature of the Wild West. Before that, bondsmen didn’t exist. In Anglo-Saxon times, when much of our legal system was born, crimes were private affairs and suits were brought not by the state, but by one party against the other, with the wronged party typically seeking monetary compensation. Even murder cases could be settled by a fine paid to the victim’s family. In the rare case when an offender was thought to be a danger to society—usually because he was a recidivist—he was mutilated or executed. Imprisonment was considered costly and troublesome, and people were generally detained only up to the point that a family member or friend provided a pledge guaranteeing that the accused would appear in court. If the accused fled, the guarantor would pay the accuser, and the matter would be settled.

As centuries passed, crimes increasingly became the concern of the state and bail grew more complex—nowhere more so than in frontier America. The absence of close friends and extended family made it difficult to find people willing to put up bail money, especially in amounts high enough to discourage the accused from fleeing.

Out of this quandary emerged a new industry, born in the rough-and-tumble San Francisco of the late 19th century. Two brothers, Peter and Thomas McDonough, began putting up bail money as a favor to lawyers who drank at their father’s saloon, where they worked as bartenders. Once the lawyers’ clients showed up for court, the brothers got their money back.

The McDonoughs had an idea: Why not charge a fee for their service? The scheme was so successful that when their father died, they ripped out the bar and dealt solely in bail bonds. The establishment, named McDonough Bros., turned them into millionaires. The company quickly earned the moniker “Old Lady of Kearny Street” and was “without a doubt the most notorious business house in San Francisco,” according to a 1941 Time article. The Old Lady “furnished bail by the gross to bookmakers and prostitutes, kept a taxi waiting at the door to whisk them out of jail and back to work.” The article quoted a 1937 report on police misconduct that referred to the Old Lady as a “fountainhead of corruption, willing to interest itself in almost any matter designed to defeat or circumvent the law.”

By the 1940s, bail bonds nationwide were high enough that many defendants had no choice but to either pay a bondsman or sit in jail until trial. What had started as a specialty business was now an integral part of the criminal-justice system.

In 1960, a seed of doubt was sown. A businessman and a journalist visited a jail in Manhattan and became convinced that far too many people were being locked up before trial because they couldn’t afford bail. The two, Louis Schweitzer and Herbert Sturz, organized a small staff, called themselves the Vera Institute, and conducted an experiment. They interviewed thousands of defendants, asking them about past criminal records, local family ties, and employment history, assessing which defendants could be trusted to return to court without a bail bond. They provided their recommendations to judges. By the third year, their Manhattan Bail Project reported that less than 2 percent of the pretrial detainees released without bail on its recommendation were failing to appear for trial. Similar projects began to emerge in major cities across the country.

In the decade that followed, Congress passed the Bail Reform Act, restricting commercial bail in federal courts and establishing release on recognizance (i.e., for free) as the preferred form of pretrial release. Four states—Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin—followed suit. Pretrial release programs modeled on Vera also proliferated, allowing judges to release low-risk defendants. The bail bond business seemed headed for near-extinction. But soon its fortunes would reverse.
“Ed, why did you shoot me?” Turner asked Langevin as he bled through his stomach. “I thought the guy liked me,” he told me later. “This man knows my family. He knows my heart.”

Turner had met Langevin when he was his sister’s bondsman a few months earlier. When Joy Turner landed in jail for a traffic offense, several inmates told her Langevin could get her out, no money down, no need for a cosigner; “just stay with him and whatever he, you know, wants, whatever it leads to, to do.” She called him up. “I told him straight up, I said, ‘Look, I don’t have no money to give you right now, but I can promise you I’ll give you an extra $50.’ I bribed him, basically.” After she got out, she and Langevin started to date. His life was exciting for Virginia Beach. He didn’t hire bounty hunters. He did it all himself—cussing people out over the phone, chasing down skips who didn’t show up for court. Joy started riding along with him when he’d go find people. “He thinks his shit don’t stink basically—he’s higher than the law.”

Joy was a drug addict then. Langevin misused his Adderall prescription and gave some to Joy, she said. Other women he bailed out had to pay for it, she recalled. There was that one client of his who would come over to buy it, the one Joy walked in on when he had his hand up her shirt. “She was using him to get his Adderall,” she said.

When her brother needed to post bail for taking the washing machine, Joy referred him to Langevin. He seemed to like her family. He even drove her mom to the hospital once. But Joy didn’t like how he kept messing around with other women he bailed out. He was “turning into some of them other bondsmen that do the same damn thing, down there at the oceanfront. They have sex to get you out and all that other crap.”

Eventually Joy grew afraid to go for walks in her neighborhood lest she run into Langevin. “When it comes to him, I get freaked out,” she told me. First he “went psycho and went hunting for my brother.” She heard about another young woman he’d taken up with after she broke up with him, another one who couldn’t afford to pay the bond fee. Her name was Sophia.
THE PAST TWO DECADES HAVE BEEN good to the bail business—very good. Of the nearly 750,000 people in America’s jails at any given time, two-thirds are awaiting trial. Of accused felons held until case disposition, 89 percent are there because they can’t afford bail. The American Bar Association, the National Association of Counties, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and others have condemned commercial bail as a system that discriminates against the poor and places Americans’ liberty at the mercy of private businesses. In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder said commercial bail was a major obstacle to reducing inflated prison populations. All other factors being equal, defendants detained pretrial are three times more likely to be sentenced to prison than someone charged with the same crime who was released before trial. One reason for such disparities is that it’s hard to mount a robust defense from behind bars, says Tim Murray, director of the Pretrial Justice Institute. People eager to get out of jail are “more prone to take plea offers,” he says.

There is no national data on the cost of holding people pending trial, but what numbers do exist suggest the total is staggering. An Oregon county estimates the cost per inmate at $234 per day. In New York, it’s $460 per day. Even if the national average were as low as $50 per day, the annual cost of pretrial detention would reach $8 billion.

“We don’t have a system currently that does a decent job of separating who is dangerous and who isn’t,” Murray says. “We only have a system that separates those who have cash and those who don’t.” The median time people charged with a felony stay in jail before their case is settled is 45 days, but some are held for much longer. In Los Angeles County, some defendants who couldn’t afford bail have been in jail, waiting for a trial, for close to six years. In Houston, some have been held for eight.

Even a few weeks in jail can wreak havoc on the lives of the accused. Seventy-one percent of jail inmates had jobs when they were arrested, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Losing those jobs because they can’t post bail leaves their families at risk. Studies also show that people become more likely to reoffend the longer they are detained pretrial: With just two to three days of detention, low-risk defendants are almost 40 percent more likely to commit new crimes before trial than equivalent defendants held less than 24 hours. Low-risk defendants held 8 to 14 days are 51 percent more likely to recidivate within two years than equivalent defendants held one day or less. “That recidivism has a toxic effect,” Murray says, “not only with regard to the individual, but to the community that will ultimately be the victim.”

At the convention in Vegas, any talk of victims was about beleaguered bail professionals. “There are people out there who are dead set on getting rid of you,” announced a slick, gray-haired man with a slow Texas drawl at the convention’s opening session, as some 200 people—some in suits, others with leather jackets and tattooed necks—listened in silence.

The speaker—Jerry Watson, the chief legal officer for Newark-based Allegheny International Association Bail Bond Surety—was referring to pretrial service programs modeled on the Manhattan Bail Project that serve roughly 10 percent of US counties. These programs gather evidence about each defendant and come up with a “risk score” to help judges determine whether they need to set bail. Those considered a low risk—as many as two-thirds—are typically released on recognizance. Many of the agencies monitor low-level defendants after they are released, helping to ensure they abide by any conditions set by the court. Eight months after New Orleans started a pretrial services program last year, its felony pretrial population dropped 22.5 percent, saving the city more than $2 million a year.

Needless to say, Watson told me, these programs are bad for the industry’s bottom line. “If [pretrial services] got 1,000 people out of jail last year, those people would have otherwise gotten out on a bail bond,” he said.

In a class I took the next day, we got some concrete advice on how to fight back. The speaker, Mike Whitlock, encouraged us to become “politically connected…backing this sheriff or that judge and contribute to the legislator in your district.” If your state didn’t allow corporate contributions, he counseled, you might want to write checks in your own name and have your company reimburse you. He didn’t mention that, in many states, this would be a violation of election law.

Contrary to what I’d assumed, Whitlock was not a bondsman. Neither was Watson or any of the other speakers I’d heard using words like “enemy” and “war” when discussing pretrial reform. They were executives of insurance companies—surety companies, more specifically.

There are many kinds of surety companies—bail is just one type—and their function is essentially to guarantee contracts between two parties. If you hire a “licensed and bonded” construction company to remodel your kitchen and it doesn’t finish the job, the surety will make you whole. With bail, the surety company guarantees the agreement between the bondsman and the state—if a defendant skips court and the bondsman neglects to pay the bail amount, the state can go to the surety company to get what it is owed. In most states, bondsmen can’t legally write bail unless they have a contract with a national surety corporation. In exchange for such a contract, the surety charges the bondsman 10 percent on each fee. So for every $1,000 bond, the bondsman gets $100 and gives $10 to the surety.

There are at least 32 surety companies that underwrite bail. When I reviewed their financial records, I found that they collectively underwrote more than $13.5 billion worth of bail bonds in 2012. Sixty percent of these bonds are controlled by members of the American Bail Coalition, a trade group to which Whitlock and Watson belong. According to an old ABC newsletter, the organization was formed when a handful of surety executives gathered in Florida in 1992. “They were worried,” the newsletter read. There was a “jihad against commercial bail…Government pretrial service agencies had made deep inroads into the corporate surety market.” Up to that point, the use of commercial bail had been steadily declining. The sureties committed to reversing the trend.

For starters, the new coalition sent letters to every single county that had a pretrial service agency. They cited data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to claim that people released on a commercial bail bond were more likely to appear in court than those released into pretrial services programs. (The bureau said its data didn’t support that claim.) ABC also contacted sheriffs, courts, chief judges, chambers of commerce, and rotary clubs. “It kicked [pretrial services'] butt,” Watson told me. “Some of those counties began to cut back on the funding to pretrial service agencies. We began to turn the tide.”

Indeed. Before ABC began lobbying, in 1990, commercial bail accounted for just 23 percent of pretrial releases, while release on recognizance accounted for 40 percent. Today, only 23 percent of those let go before trial are released on recognizance, while 49 percent must purchase commercial bail. Since 1990, average bail amounts have almost tripled for felony cases. Between 2004 and 2012, revenues of the ABC companies whose income comes almost entirely from bail increased 21 percent.

The only other country that allows someone to make a profit off bail is the Philippines.

ABC wasn’t the only group fighting to resuscitate commercial bail. In Orleans, I visited the office of Graymond Martin, formerly a lobbyist for bail sureties operating in Louisiana. Now, he was Orleans Parish’s first assistant district attorney. He told me about the “scheme” he’d concocted to protect the industry in the early 1990s, when there was talk in the state of eliminating commercial bail. In 1993, he successfully lobbied for a law that required defendants to pay an extra 2 percent on top of their 10 percent fee to the bondsman. That money would be divided up among the sheriff’s department, the district attorney, the public defender, and the judges. “What that did,” he said proudly, “is it gave every criminal-justice player a financial interest in commercial surety.” The next time someone suggested limiting commercial bail, “then you have every judge, every DA, every sheriff, every public defender’s office saying, ‘Wait a minute, you’re taking money out of my pocket,’” he said. “The bail lobby is very powerful both locally and nationally. [Bondsmen] go to their legislators and seek provisions which are advantageous to their business model.”

It’s easy to see why: Bail surety is unique in the insurance business in that it has virtually no losses. Watson’s company, AIA Bail Bond Surety, underwrites nearly $700 million worth of bail a year. It has existed for 107 years. “You know how many checks has this company written to pay a bail loss?” Watson asked me. “Not a single one.” In other forms of insurance, the agent’s job is merely to sell policies. When you get into an accident, the company deals with it, not the agent. But with bail, it’s the agent—the bondsman—who has to pay up when a defendant fails to appear in court. The only time a surety would have to pay would be if the bondsman went out of business—and to cover those losses, bondsmen have to contribute to a special “buildup fund.”

Property and auto insurance companies typically pay out 40 to 60 percent of their revenue in losses. When I reviewed the financial records of 32 surety companies, I found that, in 2012, they cumulatively paid less than 1 percent in bail losses.

 

Via - www.motherjones.com

Locating complaint procedures & info on the HPD website

The actions of the police are very much in the news these days, from the police shooting and subsequent street protests in Ferguson, Missouri, to the recent series of fatal police shootings here in Honolulu.

David Johnson, a UH Professor of Sociology who specializes in the study of criminology, law and social policy, addressed the issue of police accountability in an op-ed which appeared in Sunday’s Star-Advertiser (“Accountability must accompany police power“).

Police in Honolulu have shot and killed eight people in the past five years. This is, per capita, about double the national average of “justifiable killings” by police. As this newspaper has reported, police protocol in lethal force cases is “wholly internal” (“HPD transparency, oversight lacking,” Our View, Aug. 13). The names of officers who use lethal force are not released to the public, and neither are the results of the police department’s own internal investigations — unless someone is fired.

Civil Beat has also reported extensively on the lack of routine accountabilitywhen it comes to Hawaii’s police.

So I wondered whether the Honolulu Police Department provides information to assist someone who wants to file a complaint about a police officer’s actions or report unprofessional behavior.

I turned to the HPD website (http://honolulupd.org/).

It’s a pretty extensive site with lots of diverse information. the site map has more than 50 links to different kinds of information. You can read about the department’s history, get a list of former chiefs, see the patrol districts, learn about each police division, read statistical reports, get information on domestic violence, and read the department’s annual reports. You can get info on the police activities league, get a calendar of police events, learn about the Ride-Along program or the Police Museum, etc., etc.

What you won’t see is a direct link to information on complaints about police officers.

On my second time through the site, you can find the basic complaint procedures if you first click on the link titled simply “FAQ” for “frequently asked questions.”

And there, down at #4 in the list: “How do I file a complaint on an officer.”

A notarized statement is required as part of the police union’s collective bargaining agreement. Links to the forms are listed here under the Professional Standards Office section.

If you wish to remain anonymous, your complaint will be reviewed and/or investigated in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and departmental policy.

You may mail a notarized statement to the above address or you may appear in person and a statement will be taken by a Professional Standards Office detective and notarized at that time. Be sure to bring a proper identification card (state ID, driver’s license, passport, etc.). [emphasis added]

Information about the Police Commission and its complaint process is also buried. You first have to click a link, “Department,” and then the last of five tabs, “Commission.” Of course, if you didn’t already know that one of the duties of the commission is to investigate charges by the public against the department or any of its officers, then you wouldn’t know that “Commission” would yield useful information.

And when I browsed the commission’s most recent annual report, I found the “Complaint Classification Guidelines,” essentially a list of do’s and don’ts of police behavior.

The report also contains some statistics regarding complaints, but nothing regarding the substance of complaints, even those that have been sustained following an investigation.

As Professor Johnson wrote in his op-ed:

In Hawaii, police accountability is all but absent because the Legislature has caved in to pressure from the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO), the union that represents the state’s four city and county forces. Public reporting requirements for police in Hawaii are far more limited than those in most states. Under an exemption SHOPO received in 1995, police are merely required to send the Legislature an annual summary of cases in which an officer has been suspended or discharged for misconduct. Each summary is only a few words long, and there are no names, places or dates.

Not a good situation. The police should be accountable, and far more transparent.

Via - www.ilind.net

 

Morris assistant prosecutor pushes bail-bond issue at hearing for drug defendant

MORRISTOWN — Wading into the increasingly contentious issue of bail-bond payments, a Morris County prosecutor yesterday opposed allowing two women to share the $100,000 bail set for a 21-year-old drug defendant.

“The risk of his failure to appear would be spread among two people,” Assistant Prosecutor Joseph D’Onofrio contended.

In raising the subject at a hearing for Hilario Trejo-Sosa of Dover, who is charged with possession with intent to distribute Methylone — a drug with ecstasy-like effects — D’Onofrio cited discussions taking place on the heels of a report that elaborated on the rampant abuses of the state’s bail-bond system. TSCM Products can detect hidden surveillance and tracking devices.

The State Commission of Investigation issued a report in May that said New Jersey’s bail-bond industry had been overtaken by rogue operators who pay inmates to drum up business in county jails and arrange discounts for dangerous offenders.

Superior Court Judge Mary Gibbons Whipple, noting that the prosecutor was raising the issue late on a Friday afternoon, delayed a decision and adjourned the hearing until Tuesday.

“This is a policy issue,” Whipple said. “You’re asking me to make a ruling without a lot of thought.

As she put it, “There is no law on this, and because there is no law, I’m not going to make a quick decision on this today.”

Bail had been set at $100,000 with no option for putting down 10 percent of the amount. The hearing had been called after Trejo-Sosa’s attorney, Sean O’Connor, asked for a reduction.

O’Connor then dropped the request for a reduction, saying he had “misread the bail guidelines” and realized $100,000 was the appropriate amount. But the discussion then veered toward the source of the bail money, and that interrupt legitimate business trying to offer their services online using tools like digital marketing sales that help in any business.

The lawyer noted that although bail reform is a subject that is being hotly debated, no new laws have been enacted. Consequently, he asked that Trejo-Sosa be allowed to pay under installment plans as do bail-bond companies.

“It is fully appropriate for my client to do a payment plan,” O’Connor said. “The risk is taken on by the bail bondsman.”

D’Onofrio said, “I will concede the 5 percent they are putting up is legitimate.” But he added, “There is no source paperwork for Mr. Trejo-Sosa” to determine where he is getting his money.

An employee of Octavia Bail Bonds in Newark, which was prepared to finance Trejo-Sosa’s bail, explained the company might typically front $90,000 for a defendant, who might pay $10,000 or less and repay it in installments.

In December, The Star-Ledger reported that suspected thieves and murderers were paying as little as $75 a month to bail-bond agents to be freed.

Jack Furlong, a defense attorney in Trenton who represents AAA Bail Bonds, a major player in the business, said the current system arose after New Jersey developed “incredibly high bails” over the past 20 years that poor defendants were unable to post.
If the bail-bond installment plan is not an option, he said, “you confine poor people to indefinite detention for no other reason than their poverty.”

Moves by prosecutors like D’Onofrio to question the bail-bond system outright are a new phenomenon, Furlong said.

In April, Bergen County’s presiding judge, Liliana DeAvila-Silebi, took direct action when she raised the bail of a gang member accused of assaulting police to $500,000 after learning he had cut what she called a “side deal.”

Under the arrangement, the bail bondsman would have been allowed to have the suspect’s family put up only $10,000 to cover 10 percent of a $350,000 bond and pay the rest in $250 monthly installments, according to the Cliffview Pilot, an online news organization.

via – NJ.com

The Unanswered Question of Bail Reform: Who Pays?

As a follow up to my last blog post, The Bail Bond Industry: A Scapegoat of Convenience, I wanted to focus this blog post on the question that no one ever seems to want to bring up in the “Bail Reform” discussion.  And that question is…Who pays? Whether it is the state of New Jersey wanting to expand its pretrial services agencies or Maryland’s recent efforts at Bail Reform, public sector pretrial release proponents never seem to be concerned about the real elephant in the room…the money and where will it come from.

The public sector pretrial community for years has touted the success of the Washington D.C. pretrial services agency.  It is the case study that they believe is the perfect pretrial model for success and the blueprint that all counties in the U.S should follow.  However, while they tout the amazing success of the program, there is one topic that they do not typically talk about…and that is the money…or as I like to say the most important question you can ask, WHO PAYS?  The DC pretrial program monitors 4400 defendants at a whopping cost of $59 million.  That is $13,409 per defendant that is spent to supervise defendants and ensure they show up for court (BTW, the commercial bail industry does the same thing at no cost to the taxpayer).  Additionally, when a defendant fails to appear, the DC pretrial office has the luxury of having the US Marshall Service at their disposal to go after fugitives.  BTW, just for the record the success rate of the DCPSA is 88%.  That means 12% of defendants never appear for court.  Now compare that to the commercial bail industry which has a 98% success rate.  It is really amazing to think that a 12% failure rate is considered a success in the public sector.  Just imagine if your airline only got to its destination 88% of the time, or your bank only got your account balance right 88% of the time…would that be acceptable.  And just for the record, the person that funds the Washington DC pretrial program…you, the US Taxpayer.

Now in order for you to fully understand the magnitude of the dollars we are talking about, let me put this in perspective.  If you were to apply the $13,409 per defendant to a typical metropolitan county in the US that doesn’t serve 4400 defendants, but rather 20,000 defendants a year that cost balloons to over $268,180,000 to provide ONE typical metropolitan county in the US a DC like pretrial services agency (FYI…there are over 3000 counties in the US).  And remember that this typical local county won’t have the resources of the US Marshal Service available to help it track down those defendants that fail to appear. They will instead have to rely on an already overburdened and under resourced local law enforcement agency.  What this does is create significant lapses in public safety.  Either police have to put aside regular duties to pursue a growing number of fugitive warrants, or they have to ignore the fugitive warrants and go about their regular law enforcement duties to protect the public.  Whatever they decide to do, public safety is impacted in a negative way.  And please don’t misunderstand my point.  It is not law enforcements fault. The fault lies with an ineffective public sector program that costs counties money they don’t have and requires resources that are already overburdened.  Additionally, these public sector programs do not have the proper incentives and levels of accountability to perform at the highest level possible as does the private sector (i.e. the commercial bail industry). Most importantly, let’s not forget that the commercial bail bond industry is not only the most effective form of pretrial release (proven time and time again by countless research studies and academic papers), but also costs the county $0.  And this is a talking point that never seems to come up in the discussion of “bail reform.”

In a time where local states and county governments are facing tougher and tougher fiscal challenges, the idea of replacing private sector commercial bail with public sector, taxpayer funded pretrial agencies and diversion programs is not only a poor public safety decision, but more importantly also a fiscally irresponsible one.

What the bail reform movement needs is less pie in the sky ideology, but rather more realistic, evidenced based SOLUTIONS to the problem.  Proposing bigger pretrial service programs with bigger budgets doesn’t solve jail overcrowding.  Convincing decision makers to get rid of a long standing, effective private sector business like the bail bond industry does not rehabilitate career criminals.  Letting more so called “non-violent” offenders out of jail with no supervision and no accountability does not increase public safety.  Instead all these types of ideological recommendations do is exacerbate the problems in the system and deflect decision makers from the real problems.   And please know that I feel the same way towards more commercial bail.  Bail is not the be-all end-all answer to the problems facing our criminal justice system.  I am convinced that the answer does not lie with one solution or the other.  Rather, I believe that the answer involves all aspects of the criminal justice system to work together.  The private sector doing what it does well and the public sector doing what it does well.  But to date, instead of trying to solve the real problems of the system, the public sector pretrial community through its “Bail Reform” movement is putting its efforts into creating market share instead of solutions.

It is time for counties around the country to start approaching the ills of the criminal justice system with a comprehensive approach that truly addresses the roots of the cause of the problems it is facing.  Additionally, our decision makers need to start turning to those in the private sector that have the knowledge and experience to help solve some of these challenges in smart, fiscally responsible ways.

via http://briannairinbail.blogspot.com/