Also arrested for suspicion of conspiracy to commit grand theft and perjury was Mark David Davis and Janelle Marie Llorens. Llorens was also charged with insurance fraud. It is not clear whether Davis and Llorens were employed by AJ’s Bail Bonds or what their connection might be to Pontillo. In 2008, AJ’s Bail Bond business was the concentration of a federal investigation.

Sergeant Anthony Bejaran, the Stanislaus County Jail sheriff’s spokesman, said Pontillo, Davis and Llorens were arrested without incident and being detained at the Stanislaus County Jail.

The arrests were sparked by a California Department of Insurance (DOI) investigation. The bail industry in California is regulated by the DOI. Dave Althausen, spokesman for the Department, said they couldn’t release any details yet, as they were “still coming in from agents in the field.”

The bail set for Davis was $500,000, and Llorens had a bail of $1 million.

FBI agents and gang task force members served a federal warrant and conducted a search at AJ’s Bail Bonds on December 23, 2008. They also searched the home of Pontillo for paperwork and files. There were no arrests made during this search.

The Central Valley Gang Impact Task Force helped federal agents in the search conducted in 2008. This task force unit is funded federally and is a countywide group who has members from other local law enforcement agencies and the FBI.

The FBI would not comment on whether or not there was any gang activity or any other details of the investigation with AJ’s Bail Bond business.

SB11-186 squeaked by in the Senate vote, passing by one (18-17). There wasn’t enough time to get the bill through the House before the end of the session. Alteratively and hopefully, the commercial bail bond industry provided enough evidence and put up a good argument that helped erode support for the bill in the House. When the bill was brought before the House Judiciary Committee, House Sponsor Rep. Waller stated, “I don’t want to see even one bail agent put out of business.”

The Alternative Bond was brought up by the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ). Established in 2007, the CCJJ’s mission statement is “to enhance public safety, to ensure justice, and to ensure protection of the rights of victims through cost-effective use of public resources.”

The CCJJ is comprised of public servants, with a possible three members belonging to the private sector. CCJJ supporters of SB11-186 were chastised by Judiciary Committee members for failing to include representatives from the commercial bail bond industry in the discussions of an alternative bail bond concept.

The successful fight by the commercial bail bond industry in Colorado was unprecedented. Representative Waller has agreed to work with members of the bail bond community throughout the year in order to discuss issues regarding problems with the quick release of pre-trial inmates. This is a great opportunity to allow the bail bond industry to participate in creating better solutions.

Source: American Surety Company

With some bail agencies being lax in their rules, more offenders are finding it easier to be released. Last January, a Connecticut man was arrested for the second time in four months on domestic violence charges. He was able to post a no-money down, $25,000 bail bond through a bail agent. After he was released, he returned home several hours, later where law enforcement says he shot and killed his wife then killed himself.

Another incident in Lakewood, WA occurred when a man fatally shot four local police officers. Reportedly, he had been released less than a week prior when he posted bail through a bail bondsman who charged fees much below those set by law.

Both states were prompted by these violent acts to begin imposing stricter regulations on bail bonds.

In 2010, tougher regulations for the bail bonds industry were passed in 26 states. Of those, seven of them also placed added restrictions on the release of offenders charged with sex offenses and violent crimes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In some states, like Connecticut, there has been concern about putting more regulations on the bail bonds industry. Some lawmakers fear that many of the poor and working-class people will not be able to post bail if there are minimum bond fees in place.

Connecticut state senator Eric Coleman has said, “Sometimes people are being unnecessarily held because they just can’t afford to post the amount of the bond the judge sets or they can’t afford to pay a bondsman.” Sen. Coleman has opposed bail bond legislation in the past.

Connecticut defense attorney Michael Georgetti has said that making tougher bail bond laws is not easy. “There has to be some delicate balancing between several interests- treating people among different economic levels equally, making sure our jails don’t become overcrowded because people cannot make bond and making sure the laws on the books against undercutting are enforced fairly,” Georgetti said.

A final ruling by Judge Thomas Anderle sustained a motion filed by the defendants that the lawsuit had no real legal basis.

The suit filed claimed that Brown, who entered in an agreement with Securus and Evercom, and Lt. Mark Mahurin, restricted and blocked free phone calls from the Santa Barbara jail, which inmates are entitled to.

Anderle stated that there was nothing in that contract which indicated that the County and Partners for a Safer America ever intended to benefit plaintiffs by ensuring them free phone calls from inmates.

“The contract does not even reference the telephones in the county detention facilities,” Anderle said.  He also stated, “There were no allegations in the complaint that the advertising signboards were not installed, or that Sheriff Brown somehow interfered with the signboards.”

Sheriff Brown did mention that there are some issues with the phones in the jails not working properly and said the county is working on repairing them through the vendor.  To claim that the county is trying to make money by messing with the phones is “ridiculous”, Brown said.

Securus Technologies and Evercom Systems, companies that provide the Santa Barbara jail phone systems, have also been named in the suit. In May of 2007, Brown entered into an agreement with these two companies that allowed him to monitor, control, record, end and block phone calls made from the jail whenever he chose. Evercom paid his department a “signing bonus” of $80,000 in addition to giving it 50 percent of the money the collect calls brought in.

The bondsmen also say that the Sheriff’s Lt. Mark Mahurin willingly aided Brown in tampering with these free phone calls from the jail and that for three years, they also told new arrestees not to use the bondsmen’s services. Mahurin, according to the bondsmen, intended to increase the commissions his department received, and to increase the jail population, so that Sheriff Brown could then ask for funds to build a new jail!

Attorneys representing Brown’s office maintain that the plaintiffs’ allegations are “a scattered attempt to hold the county liable for an unsubstantiated decline in business.” They also say the bondsmen plaintiffs failed to list any actions by Brown and his cohorts that constitute a legal duty or a breach of duty.

The new blog goes along with the redsign of our “sister” website for Tonya Page Bail Bonds. The intention of the Family Bail Blog is educate the public as to how bail works, what to expect as they go through the bail process, how the jail system works, how bail bonds can be paid, what are the benefits of bail and so on. It will feature information that is helpful to those needing California bail bonds or simply curious about “How Bail Works”. We will also provide extensive information about Southern California jails.

If you have Questions about bail bonds, check out “Ask the Bondsman” on the Family Bail Blog.

It’s called “Pretrial Services” and it allows defendants to be released before their court hearing without bail. Commercial bail bondsmen want to limit this. Bondsmen point out that release on “Own Recognizance” is only supposed to be used by defendants who can’t afford their own bail, but that inmates with means seems are being offered the service – at a cost to the tax payers. Tax dollars should not be used to bail out those who have the means to pay nor should the state compete with private business.

But pretrial services supporters feel someone’s ability to pay a bail amount shouldn’t be considered for released at all. They claim these services save local governments money because it’s cheaper to let defendants go than to maintain them in overcrowded prisons – wrong. When a defendant is released without bail there is no guarantor to make sure the defendant appears in court. Reference my previous post siting the specifics problems of release without bail in Philadelphia.

Virginia is now considering a bill to codify what most states put into law decades ago: “Pretrial Release” (“PR” or Release on Own Recognizance ,”OR,” as it’s called in California) is for the “indegent” – those who cannot afford bail.

Pretrial services proponents counter that not passing the bill would remove options for judges and divide defendants into two classes based on money. “We have a lot of concern about people being denied freedom just based on their ability to pay,” said Pat Smith, director of a pretrial agency in Charlottesville.

Currently, if a person can’t afford his bail bond amount – for they are required to pay the amount in its entirety, they have the opportunity to contract with a bail bondsman, who is legally allowed to post the bond for a 10 percent nonrefundable fee. As a safety net, bondsmen require someone — usually a family member or friend — to co-sign for the defendant and be liable if he doesn’t make his court dates.

But with pretrial services, defendants who pay nothing also have nothing to lose by skipping court. In the end, it will cost authorities far more if they have to go on a manhunt to retrieve these skippers.

Pretrial services should be reserved for the indigent, rather than the already strapped taxpayers.

During those times, states tried to fight rising crime rates by meting out stiffer sentences. This tactic did reduce criminal activity, but it also sent jail populations skyrocketing . Recent early release programs that were intended to combat the financially devastating inmate-influx have been sharply criticized by police and the public.

In California, where the state’s 33 prisons are designed to hold 85,000 inmates, these detention centers are packed to the gills with 160,000 men and women — almost double the amount! But at last, there may be a solution to this situation, born from what some might see as an unlikely source: bail bondsmen.

The relatively new idea is to use financial collateral as an incentive for convicted criminals to behave. To do this, the bondmen would post something called Conditional Post-Conviction Release Bonds. Here’s how they work:

Dennis Bartlett, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition and a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council has created the Conditional Post-Conviction Release (CPCR) Bond Act along with ALEC and other groups. Courts choose nonviolent offenders who meet strict criteria and then allow private bail companies to post this type of bond on their behalf. Taxpayers benefit because there is no cost to them and the criminals now have a financial incentive to appear in court. Violent offenders who are not eligible for this type of bond can then be incarcerated in the freed up prison spaces to serve their sentences in full.

As a condition of signing on for these CPCR Bonds, defendants must agree to let bail companies monitor them for drugs, check to see if they are employed, if they are in a recovery program and/or whatever other conditions apply.

Bartlett says that post-conviction bonds could even be used to keep people from entering the prison system at all. They would give judges a choice between issuing a sentence and offering an eligible defendant be bonded, instead. This is a win-win for the state, Bartlett believes, because the prisons get one less inmate, and the state can collect money from the bail bondsman if the person skips his court hearing or disappears.

Mississippi probation workers embraced Post-Conviction bonds after realizing they made their jobs easier by decreasing workloads. Mississippi became the first state to adopt the Conditional Post-Conviction Release Bond Act, three years ago. Michigan passed another version of it in 2009. According to Gene Newman, Secretary of the Professional Bail Agents of the United States, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, California and other states will soon be jumping on the bandwagon.

There isn’t much data on how well these bonds have worked out so far, but according to Bartlett, results look promising. About 1,000 inmates were released in Mississippi and over 97 percent of them kept their court dates. Mississippi jails are now saving around $35,000 per inmate for every year they aren’t incarcerated (minus medical costs and other expenses).

Some bail bondsmen are opposed to performance bonds such as Post-Conviction Bonds because they do not have the time, financial means or manpower to monitor defendants 24/7. And, while I doubt this bail bond company would undertake these bonds, it does sound like the benefits to California could be significant.

Bartlett is hopeful that with more publicity and positive data, Post-Conviction Bonds could be the miracle cure for prison overcrowding. Let us hope so, because if this situation goes unchanged, like the flood from our metaphorical burst dam, it will overwhelm us all.

Source: Post-Conviction Bonds a Promising Solution to Prison Overcrowding
Photocredit: © Liv Friis-larsen – Fotolia.com

In the world of bail bonds, unemployment as well as lost credit and housing devaluation has made it increasingly difficult for people to bail out their family members, loved ones and friends. It used to be a lot easier to put up the 10% or $2,000 for a $20,000 bail bond on a credit card when you had a larger limit to draw from.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department stated ”There definitely have been more cite releases in the last couple of years… We are under a court order to stay just below maximum capacity to help alleviate the overcrowding situation.” For those who are “cited out” or “cite released,” the court has entrusted the defendant with the duty of showing up on their own for court dates, in lieu of being held in jail or being bailed out. 

Unfortunately, this doesn’t nesessarily mean there are less of those out there on the streets committing crimes. There’s no guarantee the offenders will show up for court as promised. Then we’re back to where we started all over again: overcrowded jails,  more cite outs and more people being re-arrested.

By simply having a bail bondsman involved in the process, it can help to put an end to this vicious cycle. Bail companies provide the public a much needed service. Definitely something for the penal system to think about, before approving more cite out releases.

If your friend or family member is arrested, they could be stuck in jail for days, even weeks.  Posting bail is a fast, easy way to get them released until they must return to court.

You may already know that a bail bondsman is the person who goes to the jail to secure that release with a bond.  But do you actually know what a bail bond is and how it works?

A Bail Bond Is…

A bail bond is a paper document, much like a bank check, that is recognized by our courts.  People should not write checks unless they have provided enough money in their bank account to cover them.  A bail bondsman also makes a monetary promise that says: I guarantee the defendant will appear in court whenever a judge requires, on a specific date and time, or I will cover the entire amount of his bail.

Responsibilities When Co-Signing

But this promise is too risky for a bail bondsman to make alone, so they only post bonds after a defendant, friend or family member contacts the bondsman and agrees to become the bond’s co-signer, or “Indemnitor.”   By signing a bail bond contract, Indemnitors also guarantee to help find the defendant if court is missed or pay the full amount of the bail, if the individual cannot be found.

An Indemnitor has to be in a position to offer a bail bondsman something in return if the defendant misses court.  The bondsman considers the character of his co-signer up, making a calculated judgment call based on his experience.  He often asks potential Indemnitors if they have a job and for how long.  Do they have good credit? Are they homeowners? Etc. Etc.  The questions a bondsman asks help him determine whether or not they are the kind of stable, trustworthy people he is willing to write a bond for.  In addition, an Indemnitor’s involvement encourages the defendant to remain committed to his part of the bargain.  Let’s face it, who wants to stiff someone they care about, that helped get them out of jail?

Bondsman Responsibilities

The minute a defendant is released, the jail no longer has authority over him.  He is now considered to be the property, or “chattel“, of the bail bondsman.  This rule dates back to 13th century England, where the custom of bail first started, but today it simply means the bail bondsman has legal authority over the defendant.  His freedom is guaranteed — unless the bondsman revokes it for breaking the law or their bail contract.  If the defendant bolts, the bondsman can also hire a bounty hunter to re-arrest him.

Bail Forfeiture

If the defendant misses his court date(s), it’s called a “forfeiture.”  Using our check analogy, the bail becomes a “bad check” that needs to be covered.  And it’s the bail bondsman who is responsible for it, in full, to the court.  Fortunately, he has the Indemnitor who co-signed the bail bond, to collect that payment from.  And to further hedge his bets, when he deems it necessary, our bail bondsman has already gotten the Indemnitors commitment of collateral (like property) and a premium payment (10% of the bail amount).

But where does a bondsman get the cash he needs to cover an entire bail amount, which can sometimes be hundreds of thousands of dollars? Bail bondsmen contract with specialized insurance companies called sureties that underwrite bonds.  So not only are bail bonds like checks, they’re an awful lot like insurance policies, too.  If neither the Indemnitor nor the bail bondsman can pay the full bail amount, the court holds the insurance company responsible.

Bail Exoneration

But when a defendant keeps his court dates, the bond is “exonerated” or completed.  The bondsman returns all of the Indemnitor’s money and/or property, except his 10% cost-of-service fee.

Put Us On Speed-dial

In conclusion, a simple way to remember how bail works is with this little saying:  You don’t  have time to waste in jail, so get a bondsman to post your bail.  He’s the man with the can opener!

Oh, and you may also want to keep this number handy: 888-Bail-Bond (1-888-224-5266). It’s the phone number of Greg Rynerson Bail Bonds — my agency.  Because… well, you never know…