I thought this was a good article to share. Not completely accurate but it good news for the industry and hopefully very bad news for the guys that have ruined the industry.

By JOSH KOVNER, jkovner@courant.com The Hartford Courant

A new law targets rogue bail bondsmen who were springing criminal defendants without collecting any money upfront, a practice known as undercutting.

Established state laws require that bondsmen collect a percentage before writing a surety bond, but unscrupulous agents were entering into payment plans instead — and no proof was required that the full payment was ever collected. Several defendants who were released without paying a penny went on to commit serious assaults and homicides, including the murder last year of a West Haven woman by her husband, immediately following his second domestic-violence arrest in four months.

The legislature on Thursday passed a law requiring that bail agents collect a percentage of the fee upfront. Payment plans over 15 months are still allowed, but bondsmen now will have to prove to the state Insurance Department that they ultimately collected the full payment. The law requires for the first time that bail agents create and retain records of payments, and gives the Insurance Department the authority to audit the bondsmen and inspect all records of transactions with criminal defendant.

“These reforms — long overdue — put the safety of the victims first,” said state Rep. Mae Flexer, D-Danielson. “The current system did not adequately protect the victims of domestic violence. Defendants were let out of jail for less money than the judge ordered — meaning bail could be set at $1 million, but they could be released without paying a cent if a bondsman was willing to post the bond for free.”

These bondsmen depend on a high volume of business to make money — a lot of defendants who are paying a little bit over time.

William Biestek, a veteran bondsman based in Meriden who has pressed for reforms for years, said it’s a mistake to continue to allow 15-month payment plans.

“If the case is over in four months, what’s the incentive to pay?” said Biestek. “It will turn us into collection agents.”

Flexer countered that the reforms “are pretty sweeping.”

“The idea is to get defendants to actually pay something, and until now, the Insurance Department had no ability to examine payment records,” she said.

The law also prohibits bail bondsmen from soliciting business inside courthouses, police stations, correctional institutions, community correctional centers and detention facilitie

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-bail-bond-reform-0528-20110527,0,7291661.story

Pretrial release: Good for defendants, taxpayers

By Robert Zack

As a retired County Court judge, having served 17 of my 21 years on the criminal bench, I would like to commend Sen.Ellyn Bogdanoff for her attempt to rein in a growing problem within our state’s criminal justice system.  Bogdanoff has introduced a simple measure that seeks to restrict eligibility of criminal defendants into what is known as “Pretrial Release Services.”

Pretrial release is a government program where defendants can be released into a supervised program until they have their first formal appearance before a judge. These programs were established across America in the 1970s and were originally designed to assist poor and indigent defendants who could not otherwise afford to pay for their own release through a bail bond.

 Pretrial release can be a good thing for poor defendants whose lives could be ruined by an extended jail stay before a resolution of the matter pending before the court. It can also be good for taxpayers who don’t have to foot the bill for the cost of room and board in a local jail during the pretrial period.  

But what about those defendants who are not poor and can afford to pay for their own release? Why are taxpayers financing their release?

That’s where Bogdanoff’s good idea comes in.

Florida pretrial release programs no longer just serve indigent defendants, as was their original purpose. They have grown to also offer taxpayer-financed release to those who could otherwise foot their own bill.

A report released by the state Office of Program and Policy Analysis & Government Accountability found that such programs cost taxpayers about $1,400 per defendant.

 If we are talking about indigent defendants who would otherwise languish in a jail cell, that’s a good deal for taxpayers because housing an inmate in jail can cost far more.  But if we are talking about spending $1,400 per defendant for those individuals with the ability to pay their own way out, then it seems that taxpayers are being ripped off.

 As proof positive of the unnecessary growth in these programs, Florida has seen a growth of more than 12 percent in just one year (20008 to 2009) even while crime in our state dropped by more than 6 percent.  

To be clear, a decrease in crime should mean a decrease - not an increase - in costs related to serving defendants. Instead of spending fewer tax dollars on these programs, we saw a one-year growth of more than $4 million.

The additional good news about Bogdanoff’s bill is that it would have no impact on jail populations, as some fear.

Two recent studies, also released by OPPAGA, found there is no correlation between counties’ occupancy rate and whether or not they have a government-funded pretrial release program.

OPPAGA also studied Pasco County, which eliminated its pretrial release program, and found that it did not appear to affect its jail population. 

To clarify, Bogdanoff’s bill does not seek to eliminate pretrial release but merely to exclude those who can pay their own way.

At a time when all levels of government are dealing with shrinking budgets, it is incumbent upon lawmakers to find ways to cut spending without harming vital public services. After reading Bogdanoff’s bill - and ignoring the hyperbole and heightened rhetoric of those who seek to protect the status quo - I am convinced her measure will achieve the goal of reducing spending while keeping needed services intact.

Good for her and good for us.

As many of you know The Surety Bail Industry in Connecticut can be a great way to make some extra money during this tough economic times. Tell your friends and family to sign up for this Novembers Connecticut Surety Bondman Pre-license Course.
Course Overview

Bail 102 is a 24 hour pre-license course approved by the CT State Department of Insurance for those wishing to become licensed as surety bail bond agents. The course covers a number of topics including history of bail, insurance regulations, criminal procedure, rights of the accused, underwriting, forfeiture management, and ethics.

Sign up by following this link: http://www.connecticutbailacademy.com/courses/surety-bondsman-pre-license

**BAIL ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS RECEIVE A 20% DISCOUNT!**

The short answer is a resounding YES!

Although, it would certainly be hard for most citizens to understand why there is a need for commercial bail due to the fact that little information highlighting the positive aspects of the industry are made known. In addition to the plethora of biased, or at the very least poorly researched articles, that the media has produced over the years has created a very negative perception of the industry. Sadly the media has been very quick to point out the bail industries shortcomings. No one will argue that there aren’t issues within the industry but it’s important that people are aware that these issues are slowly being resolved both from within the industry itself and with the help of the Connecticut Insurance Department.

For those of you pondering why as a state we could possibly need a private bail industry, you first must understand that all citizens are provided with the opportunity to be released from incarceration while their case is pending. This right is such an important part of our judicial system it’s mentioned in more than one of our Constitutional Amendments. The release of the accused is called pre trial release.

Pre trial release comes in many forms only one of which involves the Surety Bail Industry. All of the other forms of pre trial release are State funded and in fact share many of the same short comings as commercial bail. The major difference between the Surety Bail Industry and a State sponsored form is who pays the bill. Like all government programs and agencies the State forms of pre trial release are very expensive and inefficient.   To make matters worse State bonds have a much higher rate of forfeiture in which the cost again falls on Connecticut tax payers. The Surety Bail Industry does NOT cost the citizens of Connecticut anything while providing precious jobs and salaries to many, which provide much needed tax dollars. Perhaps an even more important aspect is when forfeitures occur on a privately posted surety bond, the company has the burden to return the defendant to the court, NOT the state. If recovering the defendant is somehow not possible for the company’s bail enforcement agents, the surety company pays the bond to the State which in turn is the revenue for the general fund.

The bottom line is that the commercial bail industry provides jobs and revenue to the state. All state funded forms of pre trail release come at a horrific expense to the State of Connecticut and are much less effective at insuring the defendant makes it to all of their scheduled court hearings.

The private Bail Industry does need help cleaning up some components of the industry but overall is an asset to Connecticut and could be a much larger one if the state allowed it to be. What our law makers should be looking at is how ineffective and costly the state funded forms of pretrial release are and how they can be eliminated. Not to mention some of the redundant offices in the judicial system are costing the tax payer tens of millions. Elimination of these programs and offices would grow the bail industry, creating private sector jobs, while SAVING tax dollars for state agencies and programs that really need the funding.

Andrew Marocchini

On November 16, 2010 the Bail Association of Connecticut held a meeting at the Comfort Inn and Suites in Meriden where an estimated 40 bail bondsman/bail enforcement agents attended. The purpose of this meeting was to re-elect members into open office positions and to discuss topics of concerns that many of us face on a daily basis being in the bail industry.  Unfortunately our industry in Connecticut has many concerns with the economy, state agencies, and sadly issues between ourselves.

Not only were we able to re-elect a new president and vice president to help lead the association, but we also had new members join our team!

Our current Board Members are:

President: Drew Bloom

Vice President: Andrew Marocchini

Treasurer: Tracy Hlavaty

Parliamentarian: Luke LaPierre

B.E.A. Liason: John Cronin

Secretary: Katherine Goulart

This ultimately is a sign of development and adds to the overall morale and energy of the association. Dedicated members and those who take their profession seriously are and will be what keeps the bail industry alive in Connecticut.

As the meeting progressed and ideas and opinions were being articulated, we as a whole decided to create a smaller committee within the association to focus on some overlooked but very important issues such as; Membership Recruitment, Public Relations, Marketing etc.

Committee Members are:

Dan Toner

Scott Ennis

Michael Baptiste

Lori Beechinor

This new committee eventually will have a tremendous impact on the future of the Bail Association of Connecticut. We are currently in the works of planning our first meeting and we are looking forward to start working together. We are going to come up with a game plan that will make the association stronger, bigger, better, and something that ALL agents in the bail industry will WANT to be a part of.