The general public has long understood the concept of posting bail in order to be released from jail prior to trial. It is even referenced in the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights whereby excessive bail is prohibited. The purpose of bail is two-fold: it assures the accused returns for trial, and he/she will behave properly and not pose a threat to the community while awaiting trial. The accused is either remanned into police custody or allowed to post bail as prescribed by a judge. Bondsmen, who operate independently from the government, offer bonds for posting. This is typically arranged through a family member, a close friend, or perhaps the accused's employer, and a bond can normally be obtained at a percentage rate of the bail, such as 10%. Bail bondsmen are seasoned veterans who possess a good judge of character. They carefully analyze the accused, the person posting the security, and the risks involved with freeing the defendant. To the bondsman, this is a relatively straight-forward business transaction; he will obviously not post bail if he believes the accused to be a flight risk or will cause trouble. Few people realize the bail bond industry is heavily regulated and must comply to numerous laws, rules, and regulations.

What the public doesn't understand is the pretrial release program which is advocated by the Attorney General. This is a program which has been evolving over the last three decades and seeks to relieve overcrowded jails by implementing a government implemented program to interview accused prisoners, determine those who are not a threat to their victims and community, and release them pending trial. Although this may sound fine on the surface for misdemeanor offenders, it also applies to certain felony cases, such as those accused of child pornography, theft, battery, and dozens of other crimes. Crimes of major violence or repeat offenders are normally not eligible to be considered under this program. If implemented in full, the pretrial programs will inevitably eliminate the need for bail bondsmen completely.

"Across the country, nearly two thirds of all inmates who crowd our county jails, at an annual cost of roughly nine billion taxpayer dollars, are defendants awaiting trial. Two thirds of all inmates are awaiting trial. Now, many of these individuals are nonviolent, non-felony offenders, charged with crimes ranging from petty theft to public drug use, and a disproportional number of them are poor."
"Now, the reality is, it doesn't have to be this way. Almost all of these individuals could be released and supervised in their communities and allowed to pursue or maintain employment, and participate in educational opportunities and their normal family lives, without any risk of endangering their fellow citizens or fleeing from justice."
- Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General, US Department of Justice
National Symposium on Pretrial Justice
May 31, 2011

The impetus behind pretrial programs is overcrowded jails. Proponents of the program claim the current system costs $9 billion per year to operate. Their math is a bit fuzzy as they cannot demonstrate how the pretrial system will lower this number, nor do they take into consideration how bonded defendants are saving money for the taxpayers. In reality, studies show 12% of those defendants released through a pretrial program do not return for their trial appearance and, consequently, a bench warrant is issued to apprehend them. When the accused fails to appear at trial, court dates have to be rescheduled, which incurs costs associated with judges, lawyers and other courtroom personnel, not to mention law enforcement costs to apprehend the defendant. Further, there is the risk of the accused committing another crime thereby incurring even more costs. Currently, the rate ranges from 9% to 16%, with 12% committing violent offenses. Such variables are conveniently overlooked by the pretrial proponents. In contrast, under the bail bond system there are significantly less defendants failing to appear at trial and committing additional crimes. Taxpayers should question the wisdom of creating a program that actually increases crime as opposed to reducing it.

In our court system today there appears to be an emphasis on releasing offenders as opposed to imprisoning them to await trial, simply for the sake of saving a buck. The courts are littered with cases of defendants being released on their own recognizance (ROR) who have long rap sheets, facing serious charges such as battery, or both. Some ROR cases are unsupervised, including those involving felonies, and others requiring supervision. The question though is, who is to perform the supervision? There are also instances of ROR supervised release of defendants who live in another county. Again, who is to supervise them? As you study ROR cases, it becomes rather unsettling to discover it is easier to get out of jail than to get into it.

Let's stop and consider why people do not post bail and allow a family member or friend to remain in jail. In many cases, the accused is unable to abide by any semblance of rules and regulations. More than anything, this is an indictment of our society's deteriorating parental skills which seems to have trouble teaching responsibility, accountability, and discipline. Instead, a family would rather have their "deadbeat" left in jail where they might learn a lesson or two as opposed to being released on bail.

Whereas the rules and regulations for the bail bond industry have long been established, the policies and procedures for pretrial programs are still evolving. Some are fine, others lack any form of organization and enforcement. For example, the defendant should be properly interviewed prior to making a determination for their release. Quite often this is overlooked. Although there are standards to implement such programs, many are not accredited which means processing can be sloppy and inconsistent, the very stereotype of a government bureaucracy running amok. To illustrate, in Florida only five counties (out of 67) are accredited for Pretrial services (Source: Florida Accreditation). Obviously, this means people are being released who may potentially cause problems either by not appearing at trial, or causing other offenses.

Urban areas with substantial budgets are more inclined to establish a pretrial program than a rural area who cannot afford creating additional government overhead. Even the larger metropolitan areas are having a hard time justifying it during these troubled economic times where government budgets are being slashed. The point is, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to realize state-wide uniformity in pretrial programs. Whereas one county may offer a credible program, a neighboring county may not.

Pretrial advocates are moving quickly on this matter. If they have their way, bail bondsmen may go the way of the Dodo bird in as little as three years. So it becomes a matter of who the public believes can more effectively manage pretrial offenders, the government or the bail bond industry. Whereas one-side casts aspersions against bail bondsmen as more interested in a buck as opposed to the accused, the other side questions the ability of government to implement an important program to the same level of success as the bail bondsmen.

The real issue is which system can most effectively protect the public, assure defendants will make their court appearances, help reduce jail population, and do so all at reasonable costs. So far, bail bondmen have a better track record, particularly in the area of costs which are assumed by the bail bondsmen as opposed to the taxpayer. As to the pretrial system, it is still too new, still too experimental, still unproven, and will likely result in another government bureaucracy at considerable expense. Taxpayers should question the logic of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Is there room for compromise? Certainly, both programs have advantages and can peacefully co-exist but the pretrial zealots seem bent on eliminating the bail bond industry and county governments are being asked to choose sides as opposed to finding ways to work together.

"There is plenty of room for the two forms of release to coexist."
- Sarasota Herald-Tribune
"Sensible, cost-effective justice"
February 16, 2012

How this issue has avoided the public spotlight is insidious. While the public is distracted, the government quietly tries to expand and push private enterprises out of the way. As obscure as the bail bond industry is, it makes you wonder what else they are trying to commandeer. Fortunately, this is an election year, making it an ideal time to ask candidates their position on this subject, particularly those running for sheriff. Bottom-line, do they believe government should expand at taxpayer expense or continue to utilize bail bondsmen, a heavily regulated industry with a proven track record. Your court date is November 6th, Election Day. Be there.

Keep the Faith!

It took only 10 days for Milwaukee County's new pretrial release system for criminal defendants to draw a little unwanted attention.

Derrick Byrd, 21, charged last week with felony murder in an October fatal robbery, was released without posting a cash bail. It wasn't a mistake; Court Commissioner Kevin Costello was following the recommendation of Justice 2000, the agency contracted to assess tens of thousands of people brought into the county's jail.

It's all part of "evidence-based decision making" meant to bring more effective management of law enforcement and justice system resources. Justice 2000 began using the new protocol and assessment tool Jan. 17 after years of research and development.

But missing among the many factors considered in assessing risk and recommending bail or conditions of pretrial release is "public reaction." In Byrd's case, prosecutors had asked for $150,000 cash bail. They immediately appealed Costello's ruling to Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David Borowski, who set a $50,000 bail hours after Byrd left jail.

"There will always be some outside factors," said Chief Judge Jeffrey Kremers, noting that both Costello and Borowski had followed the program.

"No victim is ever going to accept an evidence-based decision that conflicts with their emotion-based decision" about bail, Kremers said. "That's valid, but as a system we can't make decisions totally emotion-based, though it always plays some role."

The pretrial assessment tries to measure two main risks: whether the defendant will return for the next court hearing and will he or she commit another crime while awaiting trial. The system gathered data from two years' worth of pretrial releases to come up with a better profile of who presents higher and lower risks.

Now, the Justice 2000 staff compiles the type of crime charged, criminal background, and whether the person has failed to appear or been arrested while on bail or supervision in the past. Then they interview the arrestee to gather information about living arrangements, employment or school, alcohol, drug or mental health issues, and other risk factors. Lastly, they try to confirm the interview data with other sources.

After the information is entered and applied against one of six offense categories, the "praxis" produces a recommendation that court commissioners and lawyers can see at the initial appearance, when release conditions are set.

"We're neutral, just supplying information and applying the tool," said Ed Gordon, pretrial services program director for Justice 2000.

The recommendation, the actuarial-science half of the equation, is just a starting point, Kremers said. To that is added the professional judgment of the commissioner or judge, and a bail decision results.

"Studies around the country show that's the best way," he said.

The old approach of relying entirely on experience and local custom often leads to institutional biases that leave disproportionately more poor and minority defendants awaiting trial in jail, Kremers said.

After about 200 cases, he said, the recommended release was overridden fewer than a dozen times, and about equally in both directions, he said. And as more cases produce more data, the process will continually be tweaked, he said.

In Charlotte, N.C., effective pretrial screening has dramatically cut jail space needs, he said, so much that officials there tore up plans for a new jail and closed a jail annex, all without a spike in crime.

Tailoring needs

Traditionally, a lot of the pretrial services and conditions of release were applied automatically to anyone, whether they really needed them or not, like drug screening or a certain level of supervision, which not only cost more on the front end, but also often led to more unnecessary violations that left the defendant with more or bigger problems.

With the new approach, Kremers said, the services, supervision and confinement are more closely tailored to where they're needed, and away from those - sometimes jailed for months on bails as low as $1,000 or less - who don't need the controls.

But examples like Byrd make the system a hard sell with some in law enforcement.

"There's a use for pretrial screening, but obviously this tool needs to be recalibrated, maybe by me," said Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, who said the program is being financed with money taken from his jail booking and intake budget.

Clarke called "evidence-based decision making" a phrase liberals hope will resonate when paired with claims of cost savings for law enforcement. He fears that those implementing the program are just too lenient and inclined toward letting people out of jail instead of toward public safety.

He doubts the system will get tweaked much, and thinks only the publicity about the Bryd case prevented another accused killer from being released without bail a couple of days later.

Chasity Lewis, 18, was charged last week with reckless homicide in the fatal shooting of a 16-year-old boy she told police was among a group of boys who tried to rob her as she sold marijuana. She, too, scored a recommendation of release on a personal recognizance bond. But at her initial appearance Saturday, Costello instead ordered a $20,000 cash bail.

Lewis' attorney, Bridget Boyle, said she assumed her client would get a good recommendation for release because she's in school, has a stable home and has no prior record. But she also warned Lewis' family that Costello likely wouldn't allow that after getting overruled in the Byrd case.

Costello declined to discuss the cases this week, but the outcome in the Byrd case suggests the matrix may in fact be a pretty accurate tool.

Byrd was released on a personal recognizance bond, meaning he agreed to return to court or pay $2,500. After his bond was changed to a $50,000 cash bail, Byrd turned himself in after getting a call about the change from Justice 2000 staff. He remains jailed in lieu of $30,000 cash bail that Borowski set after a full hearing on Friday.

Web Site

October 22, 2011

Intelligence was gathered by gang investigators with Operation Safe Streets, of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging that Criminal Defense Attorney Kenneth Markman was delivering narcotics to his clients who are confined in the Los Angeles County jail system.

On Friday, October 21, at 10am, Defense Attorney Markman arranged an attorney-client interview on the 11th Floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center (Criminal Courts Building), 210 West Temple Street in Downtown Los Angeles. Attorney-Client interviews are confidential communications between lawyers and their clients.

While Mr. Markman was waiting alone in the attorney room and prior to meeting with his client, a Sheriff’s Narcotics K-9 unit was brought into the room and it immediately "alerted" on Markman’s legal briefcase and person (narcotics K-9’s are trained to alert their deputy handlers when the presence of narcotics is detected).

Suspect Markman was questioned by sheriff’s gang investigators with respect to possessing narcotics. He removed a package from his interior suit jacket pocket and the K-9 Unit immediately alerted on the package, which was a tightly wrapped wad of electrical tape. Deputies removed the tape and discovered the package contained a total of twenty-six balloons containing tar Heroin and Methamphetamine. It also contained a quantity of marijuana, and three mini-hypodermic syringes.

A 47-year old resident of Los Angeles, Suspect Kenneth Markman was arrested, transported and booked at the Inmate Reception Center on several narcotics related offenses. He being held in lieu of $145,000.00 bail. The estimated value of the narcotics is $30,000.00. Charges include: Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics; Transportation of Methamphetamine and Heroin; Transportation of Marijuana; Transportation of Narcotics into a Custody Facility; Participation with Criminal Street Gang Members in Felonious Conduct; and Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics.

Narcotics such as these, and the abuse of these narcotics, can lead to violent confrontations with law enforcement personnel, especially in a more confined environment such as a jail setting. Use of these controlled substances by inmates in a custody facility can also lead to assaults against other inmates due to the unpredictable nature of people who are under the influence of these drugs.

Suspect Markman was meeting with his client, who is a violent gang member appearing in court Friday to be sentenced on a felony case. Information about the gang member is not being made available at this time.

Partner to prevent or report crime by contacting your local Sheriff’s station. Or if you wish to remain Anonymous, call “LA Crime Stoppers” by dialing 800-222-TIPS (8477), texting the letters TIPLA plus your tip to CRIMES (274637), or using the website http://lacrimestoppers.org


Lieutenant Erik Ruble
Detective Robert Gillis
Operation Safe Streets
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
http://www.lasd.org


So far in 2011, 47 arrests for narcotics violations were made in Los Angeles County courthouses. Meanwhile in 2011, two guns and 34,266 knives were confiscated.

In 2010, 73 narcotics arrests were made, and two guns and 51,806 knives were confiscated from persons entering Los Angeles County court facilities.

The Court Services Division of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has the responsibility for providing security for the 42 courthouses of the Los Angeles Superior Court system, which is the nation’s largest. It is the mission of Sheriff’s Court Services Division personnel to provide a safe environment, as well as effective and efficient levels of security to Judges, Superior Court employees, court patrons, court prisoners, and Sheriff’s Department employees assigned to work at the courthouses within Los Angeles County. Sheriff’s Deputies, armed Sheriff’s Security Officers, Sheriff’s Security Assistants and personnel from a privately contracted security company monitor all court patrons upon entrance to the courthouses. Sheriff’s supervision helps ensure that correct monitoring procedures are adhered to, in addition to handling those situations which are beyond the scope of the Security Officers and Security Assistants.


Captain Mike Parker
Sheriff’s Headquarters Bureau – Newsroom
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(323) 267-4800
http://www.lasd.org
SHBNewsroom@lasd.org
www.Nixle.com
http://nixle.com/lasd----hq-newsroom-shb-los-angeles-county-sheriff/
Twitter @LASD_News http://twitter.com/#!/LASD_News
http://www.facebook.com/LosAngelesCountySheriffsDepartment