This could be a big deal.
An advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., challenged Harris County’s bail system on Thursday, arguing in a federal civil rights lawsuit that hundreds of offenders are unlawfully jailed for minor offenses like trespassing and shoplifting simply because they are poor and cannot afford even nominal bail payments.
Lawyers for the non-profit, Equal Justice Under Law, filed the suit on behalf of Maranda Lynn ODonnell, a 22-year-old single mother jailed Wednesday for driving without a valid license, and all other pretrial misdemeanor offenders held in Harris County, asking the court for class action status.
ODonnell, mother of a 4-year-old, has been held for two days only because she can’t afford to post $2,500 bond, according to court documents. The suit described ODonnell as one of many poor defendants who have been “subjected to the County’s unlawful and ongoing post-arrest wealth-based detention scheme.”
“She is currently being held in a jail cell solely because she cannot pay what to other people is a small sum of money,” the lawsuit says, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has “repeatedly articulated the fundamental principle that no person can be kept in a jail cell solely because of her poverty.”
Equal Justice Under Law has previously targeted what it calls “money bail” practices all across the United States as unconstitutional, filing lawsuits against 17 other cities and counties nationwide, including Ferguson, Mo., New Orleans and San Francisco, according to Alec Karakatsanis, one of the non-profit’s attorneys.
The group has obtained federal consent decrees eliminating that practice for newly-arrested offenders in eight cases involving smaller cities, including Clanton, Al., Dodge City, Kan, and Moss Point, Miss., he said. Harris County is the largest jurisdiction to face a challenge from the group.
Here’s some background on EJUL and this particular crusade; they have some other causes going on as well. The lawsuit names Harris County, the Harris County Sheriff, and Harris County Criminal Law Hearing Officers as defendants. You know how I feel about this, and you also know that this is largely self-induced on the county’s part. Harris County has recently taken a step towards reforming how bail is done, which is long overdue and still in believe-it-when-I-see-it mode. Perhaps this action will spur that along. Grits and the Press have more.
I have said it before I will say it again. If the D.A. limited bond forfeiture costs to 10% of the bond then the jails would be empty in 48 hours. Nobody really wants jail reform they just want issues they can take a stand on. Solving problems? Why should we do that? It is far better to scream and shout.
Hear, hear! You’re right Mr Kubosh, this is an outrageous situation and I hope a positive change is forthcoming.
@Paul:
What you are proposing is a de facto lowering of each defendant’s bail by about 90%. Will this new schedule guarantee that people facing criminal charges appear for trial?
Yes, I am. If they want people out of jail that will do it.
Bill, no it doesn’t but they will much more likely show for trial if a bondsman is chasing them down. However, if the bond forfeiture cost is capped the bondsman may not care if the person shows up or not. Which is exactly what the proponents of change are wanting to happen. Most bond jumpers are caught by the bondsman not law enforcement.
Paul,
I’m confused. Lets say I commit a crime. It’s $ 1,000 bail. Currently, my loved ones would see you with $ 100, you’d pony up the other $ 900, and out I go. If I don’t show up, You chase me down so you get your $ 1,000 back.
Now, your proposed change: It is now a $ 100 bond? How do the bail bondsmen make any money? You are saying we are still “calling it” a $ 1,000 bond, but if I run you only forfeit the $ 100 I paid you in the first place?
I don’t see you calling in Dog the Bounty Hunter for 10% of the bail. When it’s 100%, I can see you would be motivated to catch me.
Bill, let’s say you didn’t commit a crime but were arrested anyway. Do you think you should lose your job, your car and your apartment just because you are poor?
Yes, you are confused.
@Jules,
I’m OK with bail reform, for exactly the reason you mention. I’m just trying to understand the solution Kubosh has put forth.
Jules,
Lets say you didn’t commit a crime. Remember that everyone who is in jail made it past a probable cause hearing. Once they make it past a probable cause hearing how do you identify who didn’t commit the crime? If you let everyone out on a pr bond then you also let out the guilty? Which way do you go?
BIll,
You are right. I wouldn’t go after the person for a $100. However, those are not the ones filling up the jail. It is the people with the high bonds that cost more. Bonding is very competitive. If there is a $30,000 bond for instance in a aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Now I am sure that guys is not guilty and the person who is in the hospital just misidentified the shooter. Clearly we need to get this guy out so he can get back to his job of robbing people. The way it works is like this….he comes into the office and say you offer to do the bond at 8% to get the business. That would be $2,400 fee. Well most of his relatives are not carrying around that much money are they just don’t want to post it on him because of his job title. So the bondsman takes say 1/2 of the fee. Again not an unusual thing and the presto. The guys is out of jail. If the bondsmen’s loss is capped at 10% the bondsman will take greater risks and bond more people. If guy skips and goes back to eastside then total loss is $1,800. Not $28,800.
Everyone wins. The progressive feel good people get the criminal back on the street in the neighborhood that he belongs and the Jail gets empty. Bloggers get post about how great that is and totally ignore the crime aspect. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Paul, even if guilty of not having a driver’s license, you shouldn’t spend a week pre-trial in jail.
And that’s how you find out who is guilty or not – you have a trial. And you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is kind of a basic law thing. Probable cause isn’t proven guilt.
So, yes, you let out everyone for non-violent crimes.
Jules, okay I’ll bite. Why do we have bail at all? And just because a crime is violent, why does that automatically mean the rules should change since they are all innocent unless proven guilty? I’m fine with sensible bail reform that provides first offenders of victim-less crimes a PR bond but the “they lose their jobs, lose their apts, and have a terrible time of it” crowd might want to offer a workable alternative before jumping on the bandwagon.
Paul, is that probable cause/bail hearing everyone gets the one where indigent defendants in Harris County are not provided an attorney, and have to face the magistrate without any legal advice at all(ignoring whatever BS their cell mate told them)?
In any case, shouldn’t a defendant get released with no bail once he’s spent enough time in jail to cover a likely sentence for the crime he’s accused of committing?
Good point, Steve Houston. Why do we have bail at all?
What if instead of jailing people accused of crimes, we spent the money on rounding them up if the miss court instead?
Jules,
I have never heard of anyone spending a week in jail for no drivers license. No offense but I would have to see it to believe it.
I agree with you. Probable Cause is not guilt. However, if you change the law on probable cause where does it stop? All people who are arrested are arrested on Probable Cause. If everyone gets a P.R. bond why arrest anyone? Just issue a ticket/summons. The Criminal Procedure/Law that applies to Misdemeanors also applies to Felonies.
If we let out everyone for non-violent crimes then I ask the question? What about the guy busted with two kilo’s of cocaine? What about the guy with the Pill-Press? Let these guys out also?
Steven,
Totally agree with Steven, Bail reform would be great however you must have the D.A. involved along with commercial Bail. If you don’t have those two involved I don’t think you get out of the gate.
Jules,
Yes it is that one. I also agree with the anger of your question. I think that should be reformed also. I think they should be given “meaningful representation” at the probable cause hearing.
Finally, people do get released when they have spent enough time in jail to cover the crime they commit. However, they must plead guilty to do so. That is part of the problem and why we need bail reform.
When doing bail reform you must have a balance between a proper bail and the public safety concerns of making people show up in court. If everyone got a free bond then the number of people who didn’t show up would Jump.
Finally, I actually agree with about 80% of what everyone says.
Paul, it is one of the people suing. A pregnant woman arrested for not showing her papers after being stopped for going 10 miles over the speed limit. Don’t really know anything more than that. And it might have been 5 days and not a full week.
I totally agree that people need representation in bail hearings. One size does not fit all. Bail should be set according to means to pay. The guy with the 2 kilos of cocaine may have a go bag and a fake passport and be ready to flee. The woman speeding with no driver’s license probably does not.
Wow that is terrible that people who won’t plead guilty are kept while those that will are released. Coercion much?
Jules, means to pay is supposed to be an element (among other things ) that a judge is supposed to consider when setting bail. I agree with you much coercion. I just had a relative plead guilty to a p.I. just so he could get released quickly. This is a serious problem.
I haven’t read the lawsuit yet but I will. Peace out to all.
May all of you progressives have a marijuana free weekend. 😉
Paul, one woman was jailed with bond set at $5,000 for failure to identify, presumably for giving a false name when stopped for speeding. If I read the law correctly, that’s a class B misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 180 days /$2000. $5,000 bail seems pretty high for that.
Am I the only one that finds it strange that the charging instruments (at least the images online) don’t specify which section of the Penal Code was allegedly violated, but just use the description of the crime?
Pingback: Ellis v. Radack – Off the Kuff
I havn’t looked at it but my guess is her bond was that high because she had priors, maybe? Secondly, as to the charging instrument they do not have to cite the code. They just have to give notice of the crime. In Texas that means all they have to say is “she violated a law and knows what she did”. I agree with you if you are trying to say the pleading requirements are woefully inadequate in the State of Texas. However, I make a living as a Defense attorney so I am biased. You should see what they do with J.P. complaints.
P.S. Fee on that bond is she is comparing prices could be as low as $300.
Paul, for that $300 she pays to the bail bond people, she is out that, correct? But if she pays her bail directly to the government she gets it all back if she makes her court date? Is that right?
For a lot of people $300 is out of range.
My understanding is that the judges are supposed to take the financial circumstances into account but in fact almost never do.
Yes,
“for a lot of people” I would only quibble with you on the adjective. i.e. a lot vs. some. Anyway I generally agree with you.
yes, that is my belief.
FYI. I believe most pr bonds go to wealthy first time offender white people. I don’t know that for sure. My brother Randy would know.
If you are a multi offender no one is sympathetic to give a pr bond.
Paul, the multi offender angle also disproportionately affects the poor – your point earlier about pleading guilty to get out of jail after serving your full sentence pre-trial. Poor people will plead guilty to get out of jail while the rich aren’t charged bail or have paid bail and can fight the charges.
Well that is a policy difference. If your sole basis for bail reform is to help the multi-offender then good luck with that. I think you will be missing the boat. Most people myself included have little sympathy for the multi offender. There are a lot of people who are poor and go through life poor and never get arrested.
As to your last sentence I agree with. Remember what Marvin Zindler used to say. It is hell to be poor.
No, my sole basis for bail reform is not to help the multi offender.
I was merely pointing out that the poor are more likely to be forced to plead guilty whether they are actually guilty or not because they can’t afford to post bail and want to get out of jail.
Being arrested doesn’t mean you are guilty, that’s what a trial is supposed to be for. Presumed innocent until proven guilty is a basic right.
Locking someone up for longer than they would be held for the crime they are accused of unless they plead guilty is a horror.
Jules: “What if instead of jailing people accused of crimes, we spent the money on rounding them up if the miss court instead?”
Last I heard, the city alone had well over a million warrants outstanding from people that failed to show and their police profess a severe lack of manpower to address existing crimes. The county has similar issues and even if you removed all the non-violent, first time offenders that I would happily give PR bonds to from the system, the savings would not be enough to go hunting everyone down on their warrants. To me, sensible bail reform would focus first on the types of people I mention, first time, non-violent offenses. If someone were to have a lengthy record and failed to appear many times in the past, still owing thousands to courts across the country and were then accused of assaulting a cop or fireman (ala Bland), I would suggest reform move the other direction so they could not bond out for $500.
But you’re changing your narrative when you move from people waiting for trial being stuck in jail longer than they are “likely” to be sentenced to longer than the maximum sentence. By all means, add layers of protection like a PC hearing and require that a trial be held sooner if the suspect is locked up but suggesting demanding a trial be held based on a possible sentence opens a huge can of worms too; just be careful what you wish for. And if someone is coached to believe they will get a shorter stay by pleading guilty, simply end that practice altogether rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.
For me the question is; “How many people awaiting a trial in jail for non-violent, victimless crimes, are first offenders?” Otherwise, add layers of bureaucracy all you like, you are still faced with the dilemma of “innocent unless proven guilty” applying to every robbery, murder, and rape of children just as it would be to those caught with a joint, committing some traffic offense, or loud noise disturbance, regardless of whether the suspect is a serial rapist/murderer or not. The line needs to be drawn somewhere and as Paul says, is a policy decision not easily managed.
Steve, I’m well aware of your views that poor black people deserve to be locked up, financially ruined and turned into criminals for traffic violations. I find them distasteful.
I’m also aware that all crimes are not the same.
Jules, I have no such belief, I merely think that if reformers want to start in areas where more people agree, they will get more traction. PK correctly points out that trying to reinvent the wheel for those with lengthy records is a fools errand because very few are willing to extend them a free pass like you do but my suggestions are not based in race whatsoever.
By the way, where did you get the idea that I thought anyone should be ruined over traffic tickets? Maybe you’re mixed up again because I’m the guy suggesting more people be handed a ticket to show up in court than be arrested and that PR bonds for non-violent crimes be more commonplace.