Hacker News Reader

Comment by bail-throw-away | Hacker News Reader

OK - so I just had two experiences with a bay area law enforcement agency, and I am beside myself with disgust and anger:

I was accused of doing something I did not. I was taken to jail and they held me on bail - and set my court date for about three weeks from the time I was booked, but an arraignment in about 5 days.

I had just accepted a new job - but still had a week on my current.

I HAD to post bail (and I didn't really have the money for it) so I had to get a bail bond. so I could get out and go to work!! This cost my $3,000 out of pocket.

So I did, and then went to my arraignment: Guess what "no charges filed and case rejected for lack of any evidence at all"

But now - I am out $3,000 and I have an arrest on my record for something that was simply a false accusation! Further, WHile I was in jail over night, the guards and police are absolute douchebags. They treat EVERYONE like crap.

I now hate all cops. ALL of them.

View on HN

>I am out $3,000 and I have an arrest on my record for something that was simply a false accusation!

(IANAL) There are good news and bad news - you probably can "seal" your arrest, bad news is that it isn't automatic, takes effort, and you'll probably will need to pay for a lawyer.

It depends which state you were arrested in. In some states it will remain with you for the rest of your life, regardless of innocence.

I sympathize with your situation, but am confused by "I am out $3,000". Do you not get bail money back when your presence in court is concluded? I always thought bail was a deposit, not a payment. You only lose your bail money if you don't show up when required, no?

If I were to post the actual full bail ~33,000 myself -- I "get it back" - but it is legal for them to keep the full bail amount 1 Year Plus 1 Day before they return it to me...

Using a bail bondsman I pay some fee (could be negotiated) but in my case was 10%

Since I paid the bail bondsman to post a 33,000 bond on my behalf - I pay him 3,300 up front. I do not get this back - regardless of the outcome of the case... however if I resolve it at the arraignment they refund ~10% at some ambiguous future date.

I should be able to bill the city for this given they had no charges and no evidence.

Laws vary by state but basically it amounts to: Bail was too expensive/risky so he paid a fee to a bondsman to get him out. A bond is a guarantee provided by a third party, the bondsman, that you will appear in court. It is usually some fraction of your actual bail, like 10%. So if we assume 10% and $3,000 paid to the bondsman, then his bail was probably $30,000. If that's correct then GP's alternative would have been to post $30k with the police until the conclusion of his/her case.

>A bond is a guarantee provided by a third party, the bondsman, that you will appear in court.

How can bondsmen stay in business? I have no idea what the turn up rate of appearing in court is, but I doubt it's 100%. So how are they allowed to stay in business if just one person they bailed out fails to appear in court?

They stay in business by making sure their clients make it to their court date, or by at least knowing the whereabouts of the clients so that they, or a bounty hunter (that the bondsman would hire), or the police can take them into custody. They can also go after bail jumpers in civil court (place liens on property).

The OP article mentions a peculiarity of the economics of the business in that many bondsmen won't touch small bail amounts because there isn't enough profit in it for the risk. So, it has the effect that people sometimes sit in jail for very low level offenses while people charged with more serious crimes get bonded out.

>So how are they allowed to stay in business if just one person they bailed out fails to appear in court?

The bondsman has to go and get their client and turn them in, or reimburse the amount of the bail. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/bail-bond-companies-work-4645...

In this case, if the OP failed to show up in court, the bondsman would be out the $30,000. The bondsman will then hire (or, just as likely, act as himself) a bounty hunter in order to track down the defendant and drag him back to the jurisdiction and recover their money.

They can also sue any indemnitors or guarantors who were party to the bail arrangement to try to recover their loss.

Basically 90% of being a profitable bondsman is being good at skip tracing in order to keep your losses low

If I understand it correctly, a warrant is filed, and then it's no longer their problem--they are, in effect, a hapless victim of the now at-large criminal! :|

No, it's a problem for them. The bondsman or their insurer is out the amount of the bail.

Ah, I stand corrected. If it goes to insurer, though, is it still a problem?

Yes, an insurer isn't going to pay many of these claims before they cancel your insurance, and or your insurance costs will go up quickly to the point where you cannot remain profitable.

If you get a bail bond, you pay the bondsman 10% of the total amount, and they front the entire bail amount. When you show up for court, they get the full amount.

The 10% you paid ($3,000 in this case) is basically a vig for the service the bondsman provides in fronting the money.

In many areas, part of the licensing for bail bonds doesn't require the bondsman to front the entire bail. They're basically given credit by the court that it will only become due if you fail to appear (and then there's the whole skip tracing aspect). Whereas you as a private citizen have to front the entire amount.

Now how that's figured at the back end (escrow of a general fund, or 'proof of ability to pay' or just 'sure, why not') is indicative of this being just one part of the racket. Why is a bail bondsman allowed to just promise the court they'll pay if you fail to appear, but you are given no such leeway, despite, in theory, being innocent at that point?

Probably for the same kind of reason that people can take out life-insurance policies on themselves much more easily than on others.

The court assumes that the bail bondsman's incentive for you to skip town is non-existent, whereas your incentive to skip town is, statistically speaking, much higher.

> Do you not get bail money back when your presence in court is concluded?

If you post the full bail yourself, yes, but he said he'd paid a bail bond. If you can't post the full bail yourself (say, it's $30k) then you go to a bail bondsman and they pay the full bail for you - in exchange for a fee, usually 10% of your bail. That fee is non-refundable.

Then if you skip out while you're on bail, they come find you and drag you back to court to get their money back.

Same thing happened to a relative, but he was out $20 grand on bail, and $10 grand on a lawyer who went to court one time to get bail reduced; he couldn't get the judge to budge.

After three weeks in Santa Rita jail, he was let out. The cop at the impound yard said, "Sorry--you were at the wrong place at the wrong time." He went bankrupt soon afterwards.

That is horrible. That is literally the type of random thing which can ruin a life. I (and others) feel so powerless to change this part of our society. I just have no idea how this will ever change.

There is no legitimate reason to make the the arrestee pay the bond fee in this case. The state (taxpayers) should pay.

Really, the arresting officer ought to be on the hook personally for this. That would change police behaviour overnight.

I think they or their department ought to have to carry individual officer liability policies that pay out when they do something like this.

The point of the bond is to give a financial incentive for the arrested to show up to court. If anyone other than the arrested was on the hook for the bill there would be no point. The reality is that judges rarely face any penalty for setting bail too high and preventative detention is used for nonviolent crimes.

The reality is that judges rarely face any penalty for setting bail too high and preventative detention is used for nonviolent crimes.

Judges can even benefit from it. Elected judges can tout their "tough on crime" bona fides in their ads. Appointed judges become more attractive for higher seats by politicians who promised to be "tough on crime".

It's bad medicine.

Yes, the entire system is flawed.

I'm curious... in a situation like this, could you sue for wrongful arrest?

Uh, no. The entire point of the criminal justice system is to determine if arrests are wrongful or not.

The criminal justice system determines if the accused is innocent. The arrest is a separate action.

In fact, if you are convinced that is IS a wrongful arrest, you may legally resist arrest, tell the officer, and he is supposed to let you present evidence of your innocence. However, it doesn't HAVE to be claimed at the time of arrest.

I was curious in OP's case because of the "no charges filed and case rejected for lack of any evidence at all" line. It seems to me, that would be enough reason to claim wrongful arrest and at least get compensation for the bail bond.

The most likely event of you legally resisting a wrongful arrest is that you will be convicted of resisting arrest. Particularly in the event that it is your word against the arresting officer.

> In fact, if you are convinced that is IS a wrongful arrest, you may legally resist arrest

As of 2001, it was illegal to resist unlawful arrests in 39 states.[1]

> and he is supposed to let you present evidence of your innocence.

Where is this the law?

[1] http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

>> you may legally resist arrest

Very risky advice for the nonwhite.

> Very risky advice for the nonwhite.

Very risky advice for ANYONE. Doesn't matter your race, the police don't like people to stick up for themselves. Judges tend to frown on this behavior as well, even if it's morally right. The truth doesn't matter when the judge doesn't care.

EDIT: That's not to say that all judges will allow these kinds of questionable abuses, just that there are enough that you're kind of taking your fate in your hands in a more substantial way than say driving a car or taking an airline flight.

In addition to getting in trouble for resisting a wrongful arrest, you can also easily get in trouble for resisting a non-existant arrest.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382497080/...

For anyone, especially for the nonwhite. FTFY.

Realize that in most jurisdictions, it is possible to be charged (and convicted) of resisting arrest, even if there were no grounds to arrest you in the first place. It's a chicken and egg situation, that needs no chicken.

>In fact, if you are convinced that is IS a wrongful arrest

Even if I was 100% convinced of the illegality of the arrest, I would advise to keep your cool and let the police go ahead. I know it sucks to have your rights trampled and be out of 3000$ and everything, but I'm pretty sure it sucks even more to be dead.

>if you are convinced that is IS a wrongful arrest, you may legally resist arrest,

this is crazy wrong (in the US) and profoundly dangerous.

It really depends on the jurisdiction, but it certainly isn't 'crazy wrong'.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/resisting-an-u...

That said, I definitely agree with most of the sentiment here, that it's best not to push it, especially given the abuses of power we've seen. Fighting it after-the-fact is probably the best choice.

Thank you for this - I will look into it.

There is such a thing as wrongful arrest, and it's not the same as "you are not guilty of the crime that we accused you of."

Still, just because a police officer arrests you does not mean that the arrest is legitimate.

(especially in a legal sense, I guess in a de facto sense this is a relatively safe avenue for police to abuse their power)

the interactions i had with the legal / police system when i was younger form the basis of most of my political opinions, especially the controversial ones. i won't mention them here but you can probably use your imagination to determine what i'm talking about.

the police are not there to help you, or seek truth. they are there to fuck you over swiftly and silently if the powers that be decide you need to be fucked over. simple as that.

Why did you have to go back to your old job? If your employer really needed you to document your work or something, shouldn't they have payed for your bail?

> If your employer really needed you to document your work or something, shouldn't they have payed for your bail?

What?

OP said he had to post bail, because he had to go to work. He was going to leave in one week, the same amount of time we would be in jail waiting for his arraignment. Since he was leaving anyway they could not fire him.

It would thus be in his financial best interest to sit out the time until the arraignment. The only one who benefits from him getting out would be his old company. I am assuming he had something important to do there, like documenting what he did or training his replacement. Thus, I feel like they should have paid for his bail.

Yeah I'm pretty sure if you just stop going in to work they can fire you, resignation or no resignation.

What I meant is that at most he could loose one week's salary. As long as that is less than 3k it's a net win.

>As long as that is less than 3k it's a net win

Financially, you're right. But money isn't the only factor here. Would you pay $3000 - $WEEKS_SALARY to stay out of jail for the week? For some people, being in jail for a week is not a 'net win'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com