| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| Proposed Legislation in CT https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3924 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ajl424 [ Sun 13 May 2007 17:54 ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed Legislation in CT |
The Judiciary Committee, Public Safety and Security Committee and Insurance and Real Estate Committee will hold a joint informational forum on Bail Bonds on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 1: 00 P. M. in Room 2C of the LOB. The forum is for invited speakers only. The legislature is trying to bring back a bill proposed a few years back that would change the bail industry in Connecticut. Among the portions I remmeber was the requirement that local police be notified at least 8 hours prior to making an apprehension or conducting surviellence. Word of mouth is that they have only invited speakers who are in favor of the changes. |
|
| Author: | SpanielPI [ Mon 14 May 2007 06:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Closed door sessions are illegal in most states. If it is a tax payer issue..held on tax payer property on tax payer money on tax payer's time then it has to be open to every single registered voting tax paying citizen of that community. Perhaps you should remind them of that. If any legal processes derive from that, they can be rendered null and void on the grounds of improper due process of law. Check with any constitutional law expert/professor. |
|
| Author: | BondgirlCA [ Mon 14 May 2007 16:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks to what happened in New Haven, lots of changes are going to happen sooner than later. This has been on the books for years, and nothing was done about it until now.. 8 hours notice will never happen..I've actually driven down the street and found the girl that we had a warrant on. So giving that much notice is not logical, and I have to go with Ruffin on this..closed door hearings are illegal and it has to be out to a vote, and since the general taxpayers don't pay us (the bondsman that hire us do) we are not a burden on them. Go to CT.gov and check on the few house bills that are on the books..not too many...(I'm off my soapbox now) |
|
| Author: | ajl424 [ Tue 15 May 2007 12:36 ] |
| Post subject: | Meeting Results |
Well, turns out they did some editing to the old bill. The major change to BEA in Connecticut in the current bill would require $300,000 in general liabillity insurance to protect against false arrest, false imprisonment, slander, and liable. I'll post a link to the bill if it is introduced, all I have is a hard copy. The meeting was not closed door; the testimony was invitation only. Anyone could go, but only those in favor of the bill and who had been invited were allowed to speak. |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Tue 15 May 2007 17:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Many say bail system needs reform Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief 05/15/2007 HARTFORD, CT — Bail industry spokesmen, state prosecutors and law enforcement officials urged lawmakers Monday to reform a bail system they say has turned into a "feeding frenzy" of cutthroat competition. The fierce competition has lead many bail bond companies to "undercut" the state’s legal rates, which normally requires defendants to pay 7 percent to 10 percent of the amount of their bail to a bondsman, who will then be liable for the full amount if the defendant were to flee. Many Connecticut bail bond companies are offering bail bonds for just 2 percent or 3 percent of the bail set by a judge, lawmakers were told during the hearing. Several officials said judges appear to be setting higher bails for defendants than in the past because of the cut-rate fees being charged. Mary Casey, president of the Connecticut State Surety Association, warned that the situation has lead to "an abuse of our legal system … a mockery made of the judicial process." She told of families of defendants being mobbed by bail agents as they left the court and said "fights have erupted in court houses" between bail bondsmen. "They have created a feeding frenzy throughout the judicial system," Casey said. "The recent arrest of bail agents in New Haven has brought to the forefront the severity of our problem," Casey said during a hearing conducted jointly by three General Assembly committees. Three New Haven bail bondsmen were arrested earlier this year and charged with paying bribes to New Haven police to hunt down defendants who had skipped out on bail. The co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, said following Monday’s hearing that the proposed reform plan could be approved as part of the state budget. The reform plan would switch regulation and supervision of all bail bondsmen and agents from the state Insurance Department to the Department of Public Safety. It also would set criminal penalties of up to two years in prison for failure to comply with the state requirement on what percentage of bail defendants are required to pay. Current state law includes a requirement that bail bondsmen charge defendants 10 percent of bail up to $5,000 and 7 percent of any bail above $5,000. The intent of the system is to ensure defendants show up in court. However, there are only civil penalties for failure to comply with those standards and very little enforcement, state officials said. And bail bondsmen whose clients do flee routinely end up paying the state only 50 percent of the original amount of the bond. Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane said the practice of undercutting those state-required fees "appears to be very widespread." But he said that "nobody is doing anything about the undercutting. … Nobody knows what to do." Kane said judges are clearly aware of the undercutting and appear to be setting higher bail bonds in order to compensate and force defendants to pay more money. "It’s an awareness that a $100,000 bond isn’t what it used to be," said Kane. Doug Davenport, a surety bail agent from Burlington, testified that judges who set bail are unwittingly triggering an "auction" among unscrupulous bail bondsmen who compete for a defendant’s money by offering ever lower fees. "The last 10 years, the (bail bond) has deteriorated quite a bit," Davenport said. He warned lawmakers that, unless they moved swiftly to pass reforms, "the whole system will break down entirely." One member of the Judiciary Committee, state Rep. David K. Labriola, R-Naugatuck, said he believes problems with the bail system are allowing career criminals back out on the street because the amount they must pay bail bondsmen is so low. ©New Haven Register 2007 |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Tue 15 May 2007 17:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bail-bond pros get warning from state KEN DIXON kdixon@ctpost.com Connecticut Post Online Article Last Updated:05/15/2007 06:33:36 PM EDT HARTFORD — Lawmakers on Monday heard from state officials and members of Connecticut's troubled bail-bond industry who agreed that the state has to reform the process by which defendants are released from jail pending trial. Bail-bond professionals warned that since the state Department of Insurance is not enforcing the prices that defendants and their families are charged, the market is turning into a free-for-all. As a result, large, often out-of-state companies are undercutting smaller firms and forcing judges to gradually raise the price of average bonds to the point where $100,000 isn't unusual anymore. Fights in courthouses over potentially lucrative clients are becoming more and more common, said Mary Anne Casey, a Hartford bail-bond professional who is president of the Connecticut State Surety Association. "To continue in this fashion hurts everybody," Casey said. "The abuse of our legal system, the mockery of the judicial process and the undermining of all authority has been allowed to happen." The hearing was the result of the recent arrests of New Haven bail bondsmen on federal charges in connection with an alleged corruption scandal within the narcotics division of the New Haven Police Department. Lawmakers in a joint hearing of the Public Safety, Judiciary and Insurance committees heard testimony in support of legislation to remove much of the administrative work from the state Insurance Department and put it into the Department of Public Safety. It would also require bail bondsmen to remit the full amount of a bond's premium to the insurer and then receive compensation, rather than get their pay from the defendant's premium itself. "The upshot is that we heard from all the affected state agencies and they support the idea and we heard from a cross section of the bond industry and they support the idea," Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said after the 90-minute event. Under the proposal being researched by lawmakers, the DPS would oversee the bail bondsmen, while the state Department of Administrative Services would take over the management of bond forfeitures from state prosecutors. Casey and other bondsmen said that in recent years, firms that undercut the state-mandated prices have regularly gone bankrupt, saddling the state with millions of dollars in uncollected bond forfeitures. With lower prices in the marketplace, often well below the 7 percent that is supposed to be paid to obtain release on bonds $5,000 and above, there is little reason for defendants not to re-offend or even show up in court. "You can't do bonds day in and day out for 2 percent," Casey said, detailing daily "feeding frenzies" in courthouses throughout the state as bail professionals try to outbid each other. "In addition to being a rampant problem, it's a major issue of public safety, isn't that true?" said Rep. David K. Labriola, R-Naugatuck, a member of the Judiciary Committee. Douglas Davenport, a Burlington bail bondsman with more than 35 years of experience, said that while state statutes require defendants to pay $7,150 on a $100,000 bond, $2,000 "is the going rate," but $1,850 in cash is often acceptable. "It's amazing that I can get priced out of the market," said William Biestek, a bond agent from Meriden. "What's the point of having a bond? Just let everyone go. If the rules aren't enforced, why have rules?" |
|
| Author: | BondgirlCA [ Tue 15 May 2007 17:42 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The fighting happens all the time, especially at the Hartford courthouse. I have seen people steal bonds from other bondsman, including myself. I have walked away from bonds because people "shop around" for the best rate. I have to agree with the legislation. It will eliminate all the undercutting that goes on in the industry. It's going to put a lot of dishonest bondsman out of business, which will hopefully clean up the industry. Guess we just have to wait and see what happens now. |
|
| Author: | ajl424 [ Wed 16 May 2007 13:56 ] |
| Post subject: | I generally agree |
The legislation as written is not all that bad. I have had a little time to digest the proposed bill and there are some good and bad sections. The bill would eliminate soliciting bonds at courts, correctional centers, and PDs all together. No advertising or soliciting within 3,000 feet of a court. The bill also requires a 10,000 cash performance bond be deposited with DPS to keep bondsman license. As written the bill will eliminate a lot of the smaller bondsmen and bondswomen. Medium to moderate size companies shouldn't have too much trouble with the proposed changes. That said it has yet to be introduced and the legislative session ends in 2 weeks. |
|
| Author: | dmagoo [ Mon 24 Mar 2008 19:18 ] |
| Post subject: | |
If the proposed reforms are passed into legislation, has anyone thought of the repercussions with regard to the already overcrowding of prisons? And I was wondering if anyone has discussed the fact that the issues in New Haven involving the Jacob's "bribing" police officers was, infact, a bail enforcement issue, not a bail bonds issue? Who oversees Bail Enforcement in Connecticut?..the DPS. The very state agency that people like Mary Casey would have oversee bail bonds, did not uncover the New Haven issue, the feds did. ANd what about the Cheshire murders. Again, not a bail bond issue, as bondsman like Doug Davenport who dont make money like tey may have in the past, would have you believe. It was a is a parole issue. --New to the board. Just wondering. |
|
| Author: | Mdbtyhtr [ Tue 25 Mar 2008 15:13 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The issue that I see is having to give the entire premium to the Surety and have commissions remitted back to you would make you an employee of the insurance company instead of a contractor. This would also open the insurance company up for liability should an issue arise out of bail enforcement...that is a very wide door... Scott |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |