| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| Update to Bail Situation in Indiana https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1500 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | thebishopp [ Tue 14 Feb 2006 11:38 ] |
| Post subject: | Update to Bail Situation in Indiana |
Just recieved an email update regarding the current situation in Indiana. The "Also, no one to my knowledge has argued that issue" answer was to my question if anyone had bothered to argue that since courts were issueing cash only bonds, that they were in effect acting as sureties under the current applicable Indiana statutes and as such would be bound by said applicable statutes. ------------- Law suit is stalled in local court, we are still awaiting a hearing date. Also, no one to my knowledge has argued that issue. It appears to me the bail agents in Indiana are not serious about staying in business. I say this because they are not involved in keeping this industry alive. All they want to do is complain about how bad things are but offer no help. Bottom line is we are going to lose Indiana as a surety bond state. Check out Senate bill 192, its already passed the senate, and now is in the house. If this bill pass in its present form we are in serious trouble. Also look at house bill 1016, this bill is a new way the courts can keep cash bond money, again this has passed one section of the legislature, and now is being heard in the other. It looks like its going to pass. As you can see the bickering among bail agents and others about petty issues, such as continuing education etc., is about to come to an end. They can go and find an new way to make a living. ------------------- |
|
| Author: | HGUNNER [ Tue 14 Feb 2006 13:12 ] |
| Post subject: | cash bail |
Don here is a little known fact the state of mass is owed more than 6 billion in uncollected cash bail from defendents-that failed to show |
|
| Author: | thebishopp [ Tue 14 Feb 2006 13:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great talking with you Hadley... Thanks for the info! Right before your call I went out and bought two powerball tickets LOL. |
|
| Author: | Kevin Rose [ Wed 15 Feb 2006 02:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I have only been working in this business part-time (and things have been VERY slow lately), I have to admit that I was not aware of how serious a problem this was becoming. What has been done so far in this situation, and what can I do to make a difference? |
|
| Author: | Mark [ Wed 15 Feb 2006 04:17 ] |
| Post subject: | |
DIGEST OF HB 1016 (Updated January 11, 2006 2:49 pm - DI 69) Citations Affected: IC 35-33. Synopsis: Pretrial fees. Authorizes a court to require a person charged with an offense who is placed on bail and supervised by a probation officer or pretrial services agency to pay a pretrial services fee to defray the cost of supervision by the probation department or pretrial services agency if the person has the financial ability to pay the fee and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that supervision by the probation department or pretrial services agency is necessary to ensure: (1) the defendant's appearance in court; or (2) the physical safety of another person or the community. Prohibits the bureau of motor vehicles from issuing or reinstating the license of a person who has not paid the person's pretrial services fee. Makes other changes relating to the collection and distribution of the fee. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the sentencing policy study committee.) Effective: July 1, 2006. DIGEST OF HB 1016 (Updated January 11, 2006 2:49 pm - DI 69) Citations Affected: IC 35-33. Synopsis: Pretrial fees. Authorizes a court to require a person charged with an offense who is placed on bail and supervised by a probation officer or pretrial services agency to pay a pretrial services fee to defray the cost of supervision by the probation department or pretrial services agency if the person has the financial ability to pay the fee and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that supervision by the probation department or pretrial services agency is necessary to ensure: (1) the defendant's appearance in court; or (2) the physical safety of another person or the community. Prohibits the bureau of motor vehicles from issuing or reinstating the license of a person who has not paid the person's pretrial services fee. Makes other changes relating to the collection and distribution of the fee. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the sentencing policy study committee.) Effective: July 1, 2006. |
|
| Author: | Mark [ Wed 15 Feb 2006 04:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, doubled up the first one DIGEST OF SB 192 (Updated January 25, 2006 8:29 pm - DI 106) Citations Affected: IC 35-33. Synopsis: Bail requirements. Allows a court that admits a defendant to bail to require the defendant to post a combination of property and surety bonds as a condition of bail. Provides that if a court requires a defendant to deposit cash or cash and other security in an amount equal to the defendant's bail, the court may require the defendant and each person who makes the deposit on behalf of the defendant to execute an agreement that allows the court to retain all or a part of the cash to pay: (1) publicly paid costs of representation; and (2) fines, costs, fees, and restitution that the court may order the defendant to pay if the defendant is convicted. Effective: July 1, 2006. |
|
| Author: | thebishopp [ Wed 15 Feb 2006 13:45 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The person who helped file the taxpayer lawsuit in lake county, and the one who helped get rid of the atms in the jails (to my understanding) is a person named: Herb Smith. You may contact him at: EBBI1316@aol.com He has supplied me a lot of the info as well as the actual lawsuit going on in Lake county. The new bills are allowing the courts to require their own guartees (sureties) thus moving toward a state much like Kentucky or others which do not have commerical bail. The only positive thing I can see is for us Recovery Agents only as it further helps the argument that the courts are actings as their own sureties, and as such, we the Recovery Agent, may contract with the courts as their agent to recover any skips (and since the court can recover the fees paid to us agents from the fugutive, they essentially are paying nothing for our services). This of course will hurt the bail bondsman... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |