BSO Pretrial Attorneys?
I have noticed a disturbing trend concerning prospective clients on Pretrial Release (PTR). On numerous occasions, two times just today, prospective clients told me they were advised by Pretrial Officers not to hire a lawyer for their charges. In one instance, they were told they should take a diversion program.
Are Pretrial Officers giving legal advice without a law license? If so, are they, as the arresting or supervising agency, creating conflicts of interest? Is it possible a defendant has been advised not to hire an attorney, then violated and revoked by the same agency that gave them questionable and inappropriate legal advice?
If anyone else has had this issue come up in their discussions with clients, please let me know. It sounds like a serious problem that needs to be addressed by the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO).
Additionally, I want to make sure PTR is not advising defendants to forego private counsel in favor of the Public Defender.
I plan to send a letter tomorrow alerting BSO to these issues. I will also request that they instruct their PTR Officers not to give any legal advice under any circumstances.
Thank you in advance for any input that you may have.
Jeff Ivashuk
I've heard that's exactly what's happening. Now try to make it stick is another question all together.
Conservative Republican Sheriff Lamberti helped expand another government bureaucracy. Another 2.5 million dollar gift from the Broward County Commission. Beware my friend, this new governmental socialist program of killing the private bar and bondsman, at taxpayer expense, will be issue number one during the 2008 sheriff's campaign.
moderation
nazis
I gues we cannot post regarding the sheriff.
What the hell is going on around here.
Pre-Trial is just another government program to screw the lawyers and bondsmen/women. Nice job Lamberti - you friggen tool.
It's about time you woke up. This has been going on for months. It's the PD as much as pretrial.
thanks for the article jeff, you would have thought that someone would have brought this up before. please post the letter once you send it.
3.) Statement of Incidences and Resulting Argument
*Statement of original incidents attached*
That, on 2005, while being unlawfully detained, the petitioner was “formally” arraigned by Broward County Judge _________________________________?.
That, on or about March 19, 2005 an acquaintance of the petitioner posted an appearance bond and the petitioner was subsequently released from BSO’s custody and was informed that a notice to appear would be served via U.S. mail.
That, although the petitioner had never received any notice to appear, through his own inquiry he learned that a pre-trial hearing had been scheduled in front of County Court Judge Robert Zack “ Judge Zack ” on July 08, 2005 (63 days after incident)
That, on July 08, 2005 the petitioner appeared in Judge Zack’s court, and filed an Affidavit which not only, directly attacked the State of Florida’s “ State” accusations and directly challenged the In Personam jurisdiction of the court, but emphatically reserved all God Given Rights” including but not limited to his Constitutional right to a fair, speedy and impartial jury trial.
(2+ months after incident)
That, due to the fact no offer of proof substantiating the court’s lawful jurisdiction was offered or made available, and the 60 day time limit for a speedy trial upon demand had expired, the petitioner refrained from entering any plea of guilty, not guilty, no contest or otherwise, yet a not guilty plea was entered by the court.
.
That, Judge Zack further set the matter for hearing on August 25, 2005. (3 + months after incident)
That, Petitioner noticed Judge Zack and the Broward State Attorney’s Office that by August 25, 2005 time for a speedy trial would have had expired, yet all statements and submissions made by the Petitioner were ignored and dismissed.
That, on August 25,, 2005 the petitioner noticed Judge Zack of the numerous transgressions perpetuated upon him and emphasized the fact that even if the court was able to establish a valid proof of jurisdiction, his right to a speedy trial had not been recognized which, would in effect bar prosecution pursuant to F.S. 3.191, non assumpsit of jurisdiction.(3 + months after incident)
That, on October 06, 2005 the petitioner had appeared for a calendar call in Judge Zack’s court in which legal representation was refused due to insubordination. Partially due to the fact that no offer of proof of jurisdiction was made available by any claiming party nor had the court recognized that the time limitations for a speedy trial had expired and the Broward County Public Defender’s Office was not willing to demand such.(5 +months after incident)
That, on October 06, 2005 the petitioner had again emphasized to Judge Zack the fact that his right to a speedy trial had clearly been violated and that lawful discharge of the alleged offenses be ordered forthwith.(5+ months after incident)
That, although the petitioner remained emphatic, again all statement
and documents were ignored by Judge Zack, whom then rescheduled future proceedings for December 15, 2005(7+ months after incident)
That under protest the petitioner had appeared in Judge Zack’s court on December 15, 2005 but was informed that he was not on Judge Zack’s docket and that He would be receiving a future notice to appear via U.S. mail.(7+ months after incident)
That, on or about January 20th 2006, the petitioner had not received any information regarding the matter and had inquired online at the Broward County Clerk’s website and found that the case was listed as “no key date or count information” .(8+ months after incident)
That, due to the above fact and the obvious fact that numerous rights of the Petitioner had been denied and or violated, combined with the absence of any sort of rebuttal, the Petitioner had reasonably assumed that the matter was lawfully disposed of. .(8+ months after incident)
That, due to the fact that an error was made by someone other than the petitioner, a capias was issued for the petitioner for not being present for a hearing that He was not only unaware of, but that he reasonably assumed had been previously discharged under law.(7-9+ months after incident)
That, on or about December 31st 2006 the petitioner had learned that there was a capias issued by Judge Gary Cowart “Judge Cowart” whom somehow unbeknownst to the petitioner had been assigned to hear the matter.(19 + months after incident)
That, immediately the petitioner personally went to Judge Cowart’s office and spoke with his Judicial Assistant “Cristine” whom stated that the matter had been assigned “ all over the place” and that she ‘could not make heads or tails of it, and somehow the case had been assigned to Judge Cowart’s court.
(19 + months after incident)
That, the petitioner hand delivered a motion to dismiss the capias and Cristine set the matter for February 01, 2007
(21 + months after incident)
That, in order to avoid further damages the petitioner had filed a motion to dismiss the capias to be filed, in which, the motion was set hearing on February 01, 2007.( 21 + months after incident)
That, under protest, but in fear of further damages, the Petitioner had appeared in front of Judge Cowart whom had dismissed the capias that was previously issued, but also refused to hear about any of the previous incidences leading up to the present situation.(5 + months after incident)
That, the Petitioner believes that the numerous points and authorities made herein, combined with the evidence substantially shows that Judge Cowart acted unlawfully by stating that the matter was being placed in Status Quo Ante and that this was a “new arraignment” and further set the matter for a hearing on March 09, 2007. (24 + months after incident)
That, on March 09, 2007 the petitioner had attempted to place Judge Cowart on judicial notice of the law and facts surrounding the matter, but Judge Cowart stated that he
was refusing judicial notice and that anything that the petitioner had to state would be heard at trial and once again set the matter for hearing on April 20th 2007.(25 + months after incident)
That, due to Judge Cowart’s obvious usurpations, and refusal to recognize the Petitioner’s rights procedural or otherwise, and all other statements, the petitioner had reasonably foreseen that a seemingly unlawful trial was eminent. .(24 + months after incident
That, the Petitioner had attempted to acquire witnesses in his favor but was unsuccessful, due to the extensive time that had lapsed, which was from no fault of his own and Judge Cowart had further set the matter for hearing on May 24th 2007 (24 + months after incident)
That, being that due to the fact that Judge Robert Zack and Judge Gary Cowart have on numerous occasions failed to observe the declarations of common law rights that have been asserted, the petitioner has presumed that the court is not operating under a common law jurisdiction and had filed numerous jurisdictional inquiries, to which as of present no party of interest have challenged. (31 + months after incident)
That, on May 24th 2007 the petitioner had submitted a “Judicial Notice of Improper Jurisdiction”, “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal” and “motion for d6 clearance” which outlined along with numerous points of law the specific requirements necessary for a proper common law proceeding, to which as of present no affidavit of rebuttal substantially countering the document has been made available to the petitioner.
(24 + months after incident)
That, Judge Cowart’s assistant “Cristine” had set the matter for hearing, on July 31, 2007.
That, on July 31st 2007 the petitioner had transportation issues and arrived for the hearing 26 minutes late and was informed by Cristine that a capias had been issued because he was late and Judge Cowart informed her to advise me to file a motion to dismiss the capias. (26 + months after incident)
That, on or about August 03, 2007 the petitioner had hand delivered a motion to dismiss the capias and the matter was set for hearing on August 20, 2007.
(27 + months after incident)
That, on August 20, 2007 the petitioner appeared in Judge Zack’s court, whom stated that they could not find my file with the previous motions to be heard and set the matter for recall.(27 + months after incident)
That after some time Judge Zack recalled the matter and stated that they were still unavailable to find the file, he would go ahead and grant the motion to dismiss the capias, but that the petitioner was lucky that it was being dismissed and that next time he would not be so tolerant and set the matter for hearing on September 27, 2007 (28 + months after incident)
That, on September 27th 2007 the Petitioner arrived in expectation that stated motions were going to be heard, but was informed by Judge Cowart that he was not hearing to the motions and that the Petitioner should have known
that “Mondays are calendar calls” and that he “Does not listen to motions on Mondays” and further reset the matter “Motions” to be heard, on October 31st 2007.(29+months after incident)
That, on October 31st 2007, the Petitioner arrived, but found that Judge Cowart was only allowing certain portions of the motion to be heard, and asked the Assistant State Attorney if she had any objections, to which she had replied that the motion was not timely filed, to which Judge Cowart denied the motions presumably in that, the motion contained the word “acquittal” not “dismissal. (29+months after incident)
That, as of present, the Petitioner argues that he has on numerous occasions filed several affidavits and motions to dismiss throughout the course of the matter, and that all efforts have been in vein in that, they were never recognized or heard.(31+months after incident)
That, the Petitioner notified all known parties of interest, including but not limited to Judge Cowart, that he has never waived his right to a Speedy Trial or any other right, other than his right to representation, but to the contrary has redundantly emphasized and made formal reservation of the any and all Rights, throughout every stage of this matter. .(31+months after incident)
That, as of present, the Petitioner has on numerous occasions verbally notified Judge Cowart that this incident occurred nearly three years ago and that, by no fault or action of the Petitioner was this matter delayed, other than the 26 minutes that he was late on July 21st 2007.(26 + Months After Incident)
That the Petitioner has notified Judge Cowart that he had filed several motions and affidavits that, whether redundant and unorthodox or not, well established and noticed all parties of the fact that the window for a speedy trial had expired over two years ago, but that instead of being heard the matter was transferred from one bench to another.
That, on numerous occasions, the petitioner has notified Judge Cowart of the fact that on or about December 31st 2006 he had learned that a capias had been issued for his arrest and had, spent numerous hours in the courthouse in an attempt to discover which Judge had been assigned to hear the matter .
That, on November 16th 2007, the Petitioner informed Judge Cowart that it was not until, on or about December 31st 2006 the Petitioner had finally learned that the case had been assigned to Judge Cowart, which led to the series of events stated above. .(30 + Months After Incident)
That, November 16th 2007, Judge Cowart finally inquired of the Clerk as to how the case was mishandled, to which she replied that originally Judge Zack recused himself, the matter was transferred to a Judge Robinson (I believe), whom also recused herself and then was subsequently assigned to Judge Cowart.
.(30 + Months After Incident)
That, during the hearing on November 16th 2007, the Petitioner once again informed Judge Cowart that he believed that substanti
substantially sufficient grounds for a lawful dismissal of the matter were contained the previously submitted documents, that he would rely on his those submissions.(30 + Months After Incident)
That, as of present and on every occasion Judge Cowart has dismissed all statements and submissions “at this time” and further ordered the Petitioner to undergo a psychological evaluation and reset the matter for hearing on November 16th 2007 (30+ Months after Incident)
That, although the Petitioner has notified all parties of interest, on numerous occasions, that the charge of driving with license expired is frivolous in that the Petitioner has had a valid driver’s license, issued from another state since 2003.
That, at the time of the incident, the Petitioner was not bound by any agreement or consent with the State of Florida to submit to any sobriety tests.
That, the Petitioner was not in control of any motor vehicle at the time of the incident, but to the contrary was the passenger of the vehicle, therefore not obligating him to perform any sort of sobriety testing.
That, as proof of this, the vehicle that was listed in the incident report, 1973 Ford f-350, VIN # ____________, Florida license plate # VAB 436, was dismantled, sold for salvage and not been in existence since October of 2000, therefore substantiating that all statements and accusations made by Broward Sheriff’s Office are utterly false, misleading, malicious and frivolous. (4+years prior to incident)
That, the Petitioner has substantially, even redundantly made formal reservation of all rights, liberties and entitlements at all stages of this matter.
That, although he did so under protest, the petitioner has always made himself available for all proceedings in this matter and by or through no direct action of the petitioner, has any of the proceedings been delayed.
That, due in part to the fact that such an extensive time period has passed, the petitioner sincerely believes that he would be prejudiced and does not reasonably foresee any logical way to receive a fair and speedy trial.
That, the petitioner is able to factually prove that as a direct result of this series of transgressions the petitioner has and continues to suffer intense personal damages and financial losses well in excess of three hundred thousand dollars.
Therefore due to the probability of a future civil action(s), with damages well in excess of $ 15, 000.00, the petitioner herein wishes to reserves this court’s jurisdiction in the seemingly likely event that further civil action is sought
That, the petitioner has endured nearly three years of financial and personal hardships due to the obvious malfeasance of justice and believes that any future actions, by all herein stated parties, concerning this matter, would certainly result in further irreparable damages.
That, the fact that Judge Cowart refused to acknowledge the Petitioner’s statements and “formally arraigned” the Pe
Petitioner more than twenty one months preceding the incident clearly illustrates that Judge Cowart has and continues to act beyond the scope and bounds of his authority.
That, the Petitioner believes that Judge Cowart’s latest order for Petitioner’s psychological evaluation is nothing more than an attempt to distort the acts, omissions and events that have transpired throughout the course of this matter. (31+Months After Incident)
That, due to the fact that Judge Cowart refuses to observe the Petitioner’s rights, the declarations thereof and the State of Florida refuses to file a Nolo Prosequ , the Petitioner rightfully and reasonably believes that Judge Cowart holds a biased and prejudicial opinion of the Petitioner by allowing the Broward County State Attorney’s Office to unlawfully proceed against the Petitioner in contradiction with and disregard to numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions.
4.) Known Points of Law and Authorities
In support of Petitioner’s Argument, Petitioner herein relies on, but not limited to the following Points of Law and Authorities, if any party finds any point to be invalid, that point shall not prejudice the validity of any other
State of Florida Constitution, Art.1, Sec 9. Due process.--No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
State of Florida Constitution, Art.1, Sec 12. Searches and seizures.--The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
History.--Am. H.J.R. 31-H, 1982; adopted 1982.
State of Florida Constitution, Art.1, Sec 16. Rights of accused and of victims.--
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be furnished a copy of the charges, and shall have the right to have compulsory process for witnesses, to confront at trial adverse witnesses, to be heard in person, by counsel or both, and to have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury in the county where
Petitioner more than twenty one months preceding the incident clearly illustrates that Judge Cowart has and continues to act beyond the scope and bounds of his authority.
That, the Petitioner believes that Judge Cowart’s latest order for Petitioner’s psychological evaluation is nothing more than an attempt to distort the acts, omissions and events that have transpired throughout the course of this matter. (31+Months After Incident)
That, due to the fact that Judge Cowart refuses to observe the Petitioner’s rights, the declarations thereof and the State of Florida refuses to file a Nolo Prosequ , the Petitioner rightfully and reasonably believes that Judge Cowart holds a biased and prejudicial opinion of the Petitioner by allowing the Broward County State Attorney’s Office to unlawfully proceed against the Petitioner in contradiction with and disregard to numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions.
4.) Known Points of Law and Authorities
In support of Petitioner’s Argument, Petitioner herein relies on, but not limited to the following Points of Law and Authorities, if any party finds any point to be invalid, that point shall not prejudice the validity of any other
State of Florida Constitution, Art.1, Sec 9. Due process.--No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
State of Florida Constitution, Art.1, Sec 12. Searches and seizures.--The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
History.--Am. H.J.R. 31-H, 1982; adopted 1982.
State of Florida Constitution, Art.1, Sec 16. Rights of accused and of victims.--
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be furnished a copy of the charges, and shall have the right to have compulsory process for witnesses, to confront at trial adverse witnesses, to be heard in person, by counsel or both, and to have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury in the county where
A review of sunbiz.org indicates that JAAB, Inc. is one month late with its annual corporate filings, thereby risking administrative dissolution.
Sort of like when Bill Gelin's license was suspended for not doing required CLEs.
Why would JAAB, Inc. choose not to make this required filing? Is there an issue about who are actually the officers now that Craig is out of the picture?
Or are these folks purely criminal defense hacks who have no clue how to do an annual corporate filing?
Republican Sheriff Lamberti agrees to accept 2.5 million for pre-trial, but is now faced with taking deputies off the street because of the recent(1/29/08) new homestead property tax cut. Hmmmmmmmmm. Why would our sheriff ask the Democratic controlled County Commission for more money for pre-trial prior to the big January 29, 2008 vote. His department was already interviewing new pre-trial officers prior to the county commission vote to authorize more money for pre-trial.
Why should the taxpayers subsidize a defendant's get out of jail free card, along with a free APD, while his drug trafficking case is still pending.
News Flash.... the bail bond business is hurting, the defense lawyers are hurting, and the sheriff's uneducated pre-trial moles are practicing law without a license. Someone will be contacting the bar soon.
Sounds like the pretrial release counselors need a bit more training. I know they like to pipe in and "help" the court even when aren't asked a question. Giving out legal advice is not only wrong, it's illegal. Also, depending on what they're saying, it could explain why the private bar cases are going down and the PD cases are going up. The last thing the PD needs are clients on the edge of indigency and who are pushed in the direction of the PD. It would be better to just let the chips fall where they may.
2:44 - Florida Bar shows no disciplinary action or suspension for William Gelin #0490229.
Are you a liar?
No, but you are a moron. Please feel free to ask Bill. He even posted about his bar issue on the blog a few months back. He subsequently cleared it up.
But glad you ignore the point about JAAB, Inc. not filing a mandatory annual corporate report and facing administrative dissolution as a result.
FOB must stand for F*cknig Obnoxious Buckethead.
The reason the Sheriff went to the commission to expand Pretrial was to save $$. The Sheriff is not only the chief law enforcement officer, he is also the chief correctional officer. A new jail is needed. It costs $70 million to build and $30 million a year to operate for 1,000 inmates. Does it make more sense to spend all that money when Pretrial can do the same job for only $2.5 million a year? Of course not. Face it...the bond industry is an outdated relic of the wild west. They don't protect public safety. All they protect is their own profits.
brian simon for sherriff
Hey 8:11pm:
Wake up. The Def. pays a 10% premium, the def.'s family is motivated per the lien on the house to make sure the def. appears in court. No show, mommy will lose the collateral. With pre-trial only, the county will lose a bracelet, and another deputy is placed in danger trying to find the absconder. Your choice - no tax dollars spent, the bail bond agent hires a bounty hunter and/or will pick the absconder up at no risk to the taxpayer. They are motivated because it is such a pain to foreclose on a house for the secured collateral. The new breed of bounty hunters have bullet proof vests, must follow the statutes re: bond forfeiture, use non-lether tactics, and remember, get the suspect back in custody by using smarts, ie...talking to friends, and family, offering $100.00 to $500.00 to anyone who provides infor re: the absconder, interviewing former neighbors, employers, etc...
Jail overcrowding; give me a break. Simply stop holding people for stupid, municipal ordinance violations, non-violent offenses, use the current jail system. When is the last time you went to Conte and both A and B tower are being utilized. Give me a break. Why are you so jealous about entrepreneurs being compensated for owning and running their own businesses. You must be one of those lazing government employees.
Pre trial Services is being sold as a jail overcrowding solution.Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask how many non-compliance warrants/violation of "PTR CONDITIONS"warrants are being issued every month. Ask how many people are right back in jail,sitting there on no bond because of the oppressive nature of PTR Services. They don't reduce the population-they add to it. PTR and their bracelets are the new slave masters of the 21st century. Only a bailbond release provides a person true innocent until proven guilty freedom. Community Corrections/Pre-trial Service Models are based upon the mantra of eliminating commercial bondsman AND private defense attorneys. If any one thinks that Community Corrections/BSO &
Pre-trial Services & the Public Defenders Office is not in business- LOOK at the fees charged and the income produced. $40.00 app fees, drug court fees, collect call fees, cash bond seizures, diversion program fees, gps fees....etc.,etc. The government is in business big time. By the way Ptr's budget is not 2.5...their budget is 3.2 million for 2007 plus an additional 1.4 million for 2008 and an additional request for 1.7 million for 2009. That will be about 6 million plus in 2009 and I guarantee that we will still have a jail overcrowding problem. The true solution lies with the Judges. Judges addressing the NO BOND population of the jail. Moving and resolving cases.
Well...first, whether a warrant is issued for violation of BSO's Pretrial or a surety bond...ALL go to LEO's to find. It is inaccurate to say only Pretrial's cause LEO's to go find people. Second, surety bond releases from jail are triple the number of release to Pretrial. So again, don't let the facts get in the way. And I am completely mystified at the ridiculous conspiratorial connection you dreamed up between Pretrial and the PD's. Get real. Third, the jail has VERY few municipal ordinance violators or misdemeanors who have no holds for other counties. I agree that the jail is holding people who it shouldn't, but that is an issue for the judges. No one can tell a judge what to do, not even the county commission. Without a variety of options for release, the jail WILL be overcrowded and trust me Judge Hoevler will not impose a small fine this time; it will hurt next time. Surety bond agents are a necessity...without them the jail would definitely be overcrowded. Whey does it have to be a zero sum game. Both Pretrial and Surety Bond can co-exist. Bail agents need to adjust to the new day and age. That is what any good business does. Pretrial mission is to reduce jail crowding. Maybe if the bail agents would stop being so paranoid and actually work with Pretrial, they would actually get MORE business. What a concept!!!
OK LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING. PRETRIAL IS USING OUR TAX DOLLERS TO LET CRIMINALS OUT INTO THE STREETS WITH NO SUPER5VISION. IF THEY FOCUSED ON WHAT THE PROGRAM WAS ORIGANALLY STARTED FOR IE MUNICIPLE -LOW GRADE OFFENSES THERE WOULD BE NO OVERPOPULATION IN THE JAIL. BONDSMAN SECURE THE BONDS BY HAVING EITHER THE DEFENDANTS FAMILY OR FRIEND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE $$ AND IF THEY SKIP BOND THEY EITHER TRACK THEM DOWN OR PAY THE COURTS. IT IS NOT UP TO THE POLICE TO TRACK THEM ITS THE BAIL BONDSMANS RESPONSIBILITY. NOW IF SOMEONE ON PRETRIAL SKIPS ALL THEY DO IS ISSUE A WARRENT AND THEN OUR TAXES PAY THE COURTS. WAKE UP PEOPLE!! MY TAXES COULD BE USED FOR A LOT MORE THINGS THEN LETTING CRIMINALS OUT OF JAIL WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST AND NO REPROCUSSIONS FOR THEIR ACTIONS. NOBODY WILL LEARN IF THEY HAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD.
OK LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING. PRETRIAL IS USING OUR TAX DOLLERS TO LET CRIMINALS OUT INTO THE STREETS WITH NO SUPER5VISION. IF THEY FOCUSED ON WHAT THE PROGRAM WAS ORIGANALLY STARTED FOR IE MUNICIPLE -LOW GRADE OFFENSES THERE WOULD BE NO OVERPOPULATION IN THE JAIL. BONDSMAN SECURE THE BONDS BY HAVING EITHER THE DEFENDANTS FAMILY OR FRIEND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE $$ AND IF THEY SKIP BOND THEY EITHER TRACK THEM DOWN OR PAY THE COURTS. IT IS NOT UP TO THE POLICE TO TRACK THEM ITS THE BAIL BONDSMANS RESPONSIBILITY. NOW IF SOMEONE ON PRETRIAL SKIPS ALL THEY DO IS ISSUE A WARRENT AND THEN OUR TAXES PAY THE COURTS. WAKE UP PEOPLE!! MY TAXES COULD BE USED FOR A LOT MORE THINGS THEN LETTING CRIMINALS OUT OF JAIL WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST AND NO REPROCUSSIONS FOR THEIR ACTIONS. NOBODY WILL LEARN IF THEY HAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD.
To Irie: It is obvious that you are totally uneducated about this subject so let me help you. One, Pretrial DOES supervise people...the bond industry does not (drug testing, no victim contact, exclusion zone, curfews, possession of weapons, employment, just to name a few things they do.) Second, Pretrial was not created for municipal low grade offenses...of the 5,300 people in jail that population is less than 500. Third, when someone skips out on a bond a warrant is issued for their arrest. Whenever a warrant is issued it goes into the BSO warrants system and cops go looking for them whether a bondsmen is looking for them or not. Hello!!! Fourth, your tax dollars SHOULD be spent to give innocent people the chance at freedom from being held in jail pretrial without consideration of the size of their bank account...look at supreme court and state laws..."presumption in favor of non-monetary release." This is a democracy that values freedom. Freedom should never come to only those with a hefty bank account. Government exists for a purpose. This is one of them.
no it is obvious you are undereducated about the subject the BSO warrents division has over 214,000 unserved warrents right now. and as far pretrial supervising people their supervising consists of a phone call and bondsman do offer everything that pretrial does i know from personal experience. and only when someone misses court is a warrent issued not if they skip and the bondsmans job is to look for them whether the police are or not and if they arent found then they have to pay. it is not for people with big bank accounts 10% and collateral thats why their are bondsman for people who cant afford it, and if you look up the pretrial and see why they were created it was exactly for indigent people with LOW GRADE CRIMES. i think you need to educate yourself better before you start making comments. our tax dollars should be used for more police, better schools, medical ect. instead of letting out accused criminals which in reality 95% are guilty. thanks.
To Irie: Where is it written that pretrial was created for indigent people with low grade crimes?
Is PreTrial Release Guaranteed to all Defendants ?
No, Pretrial releases are mainly for defendants accused of minor crimes who can demonstrate that they live the community and pose no threat of flight or danger to the community at large. Some jurisdictions only release those that meet the above criteria and are indigent or do not own property.
GO TO WWW.PRETRIALRELEASE.COM
THERE ARE SOME BUT VERY FEW 3RD DEGREE FELONY CRIMES THAT WILL BE ACCEPTTED BASED UPON HISTORY AND OTHER DETERMINING FACTORS BUT THE FACT IS PRETRIAL DOES NOT TAKE THE TIME TO EXAMINE THOSE THINGS, I SEE IT EVERYDAY, THEY LET SOMEONE OUT ON A $500,000 TRAFFICKING OXYCODONE CHARGE. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS MORE THROUGHLY I AM TELLING YOU FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE DONT LET THESE PEOPLE PULL THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES. MY BOSS AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS I KNOW WHERE AT THE COMMISSONERS MEETING AND THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT WAS SET BY THE COMMISSIONERS SUCH AS NO FELONY RELEASES THAT HAS NOT BEEN MET AND THERE WILL BE A REVIEW IN 6 MONTHS WHERE THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVE WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN USING THE BUDGET FOR AND WE WILL BE READY FOR THEM.
Most of the bloggers on this issue are either bondsmen or idiots. And if you are attorneys, try reading the rules of criminal procedure and the Florida Statutes on the subject. Every person arrested for a crime not enumerated as a dangerous crime is entitled to the presumption of pretrial release without monetary conditions. In order of preference, it starts with an ROR. We are know that many Broward judges are wimps and refuse to ROR people, in the unlikely event that person goes out a commits a crime, the judge doesn't want his or her picture in the paper as the judge who released the bad guy. So they need an alternate method of release that will give the judge a little cover. That's where the pretrial release program comes into play. The pretrial release program should be available to anyone who is otherwise eligible for release, regardless of monetary means. Many clients I know would prefer to post the bond if they have the money, because they know there are less resrictions on a surety bond than there is on the pretrial release program.
If you look at the stats, there is a higher percentage of people failing to appear for court while on bond than out on the pretrial release program. The reason is supervision. For you criminal defense attorneys out there, don't forget that your clients are presumed innocent and therefore should not be forced to stay in jail until their trial, except under the most unusual circumstances.
The pretrial release program should have been expanded years ago because it was the right thing to do. The only reason it's expanding now is to avoid or delay the building of a new jail. Basically, the county commission made the right decision for the wrong reason. Their decision was based on economics when it should have been based on the fact that this county has been illegally keeping indigent people in jail for many years. It has only been in the last couple of years that there has been some spirited debate to change the abuses of the past and move into the 21st century. Better late than never.
Hey 10:59 - How about bondsmen & idiots?
Oh yah, im sure that someone just happened to be on the blog at 10:59 when that post went up (or was refreshing a screen), read the post, and then had the ability to post a new comment, all within 1 minute.
Clusterposting by JAABer elites. So sad.
This issue wouldn't exist if they didn't file so many cheap ass cases in Broward. You know it's true.
It's called the Manhattan bail project started by Robert Kennedy research performed by the Vera Institute. That is where is says it. Pretrial has overreached it's original intent and is now competing needlessly with private enterprise for the sake of growing government and perpetuating their liberal agenda.
The Manhattan Bail Project was back in the 1960's. Have you ever heard of evolution. Face it, Pretrial offers a service that the bond industry does not. If the bond industry would do a good job at supervising individuals then Pretrial would not need to be bigger.