I was working on a bail bond at a jail the other day when a young lady came into the lobby and talked to the deputy at the desk. She got a lot of attention because she was very attractive. Apparently, she came to the jail to visit someone.

The deputy asked her for her driver’s license and she replied that she didn’t have one. He asked if she had a state issued ID. She produced one, but it was expired. He pointed this out to her and she said that she had a valid ID at home and would have to go get it.

She left the lobby, went outside and got into a car and drove off. The deputy remarked “Did I just see that?” He sat in disbelief that she had driven to the jail without a valid driver’s license. “I’ll be waiting for her if she comes back.”

I’m confident that she will be back, one way or another.

Al Perna

Aloha Bail Bonds

A guest commentary article in The Denver Post by defense attorney, Larry Pozner, regarding SB 11-186 stating that it will save money and reduce jail overcrowding caused me to look a little deeper into the issue. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation’s largest nonpartisan organization of state legislators. They published an article in January, 2010 entitled Jail Population Decreases as the Use of Commercial Bail Increases. The article references a U.S. Department of Justice study that showed that overall jail population decreased from 2007 to 2009. Michael Hough, public safety resident fellow at ALEC said, “This latest study disproves the myth that the use of bail bonds increases the number of people in jail… The increased use of commercial bail can actually help to alleviate overcrowding in jails.”

I worked in pretrial services and law enforcement in the state of Florida, which has a much higher crime rate than the state of Colorado. I was interested in finding out how the people with high crime rates are handling the problem. There is currently a bill in the Florida Senate  SB 0372 designed to end the use of taxpayer funds to release defendants who can afford their own bail. It states in part “It is the policy of this state that only defendants who are indigent and who qualify for the services of the public defender are eligible to participate in a pretrial services program.” Further, it states “it is the policy of this state that, to the greatest extent possible, the resources of the private sector be used to assist in the pretrial release of defendants…. If a defendant seeks to post  a surety bond pursuant to a predetermined bond schedule, the defendant shall be permitted to do so without any interference or restriction by a pretrial release program.”

The state of Florida has been dealing with a high crime rate and jail overcrowding for years. The Legislators in Colorado should look to states that are further down the road as a model for what to do. Unfortunately, some have the attitude that “yes, it didn’t work there. But we will do it better. We won’t make the mistakes they made. We’ll show them how it’s done.”

The U.S. Department of Justice published an article Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts that states in part “…defendants on financial release were more likely to make all scheduled court appearances. Defendants released on an unsecured bond or as part of an emergency release were most likely to have a bench warrant issued because they failed to appear in court.”

Mr. Pozner, I believe that you are mistaken.

Al Perna
Aloha Bail Bonds

Yesterday, I helped two families in completely different circumstances. While driving home at the end of the day, it occurred to me that neither will be possible if SB 11-186 passes.

About a month ago, I helped a family get someone out of jail. I was concerned as the family member jailed had a history of drug abuse. I questioned the family about their ability to handle the situation to make sure that they understood what they were doing and that they were up to the challenged. I tried to talk them out of doing the bond, but they insisted. We did the bond.

Yesterday, they called and told me that they were having problems with this person. She had a PR bond from another county and was under pretrial supervision. She had failed to take several UA’s because she knew that she could not pass them due to her drug use. Pretrial called to tell her that they were revoking her bond. Yes, you read that correctly, pretrial called to tell her that they were revoking the bond. Why would you call someone and give them warning that you were about to revoke their bond? I wouldn’t do it because it would give the person the opportunity to go into hiding.

The family called me and said that the defendant was packing her things and they were concerned about the bond that they were on. They wanted her picked up and brought back to jail. I called my recovery guy and sent him to the house while I went to the courthouse to obtain the necessary paperwork to revoke the bond. We had her at the jail about two hours later. The family was concerned because they had a financial stake in the bond. I was concerned because I had a financial interest in the bond. Pretrial, having no financial interest in the bond, called to tell the defendant that they were revoking the bond. Pretrial was not going to have to look for her, they were not going to have to take money out of their pocket if she was not found.

If SB 11-186 was in effect and the family posted a deposit bond, they would have no one to call to revoke the bond. I won’t be there and my recovery guys won’t be there. The family will be told that they will have to bring the person to the jail themselves if they wish to revoke the bond. Pretrial isn’t going to help. In fact, they may call the defendant and tell them that the bond is about to be revoked.

The second situation involved a long-distance bond, one that will not occur if SB 11-186 passes. I received a call from a woman who lives four hours away from the jail where her daughter was incarcerated on a traffic charge. She paid for the bond via credit card, I faxed her the bond documents and went to the jail to post the bond. Under SB 11-186, she will have to drive the four hours to the jail to post the bond herself. There will be no bail agents to help her and the jail isn’t going to accept a credit card nor fax documents.

If you take a look at the activities of our Colorado State Legislature what you will find is a lot of people spending a lot of time working on making new laws. I’m sure that most of them are good people working on well-intended bills. I’m equally certain that the one law that they are not paying much attention to is the Law of Unintended Consequences. These unintended consequences can be of three types:

• A positive, unexpected benefit.
• A negative, unexpected result.
• A perverse effect, contrary to what was originally intended, actually making the problem worse.

As you can see, two of the three types are negative. Simply stated, give any law, you have a 66.66% chance of screwing something up. Mindful of this, I decided to take a look at what I think things will be like if SB 11-186 becomes law.

The ten Judicial Districts that cover 70% of the population of the state and currently have pretrial services departments will adopt the deposit bail program. That is because 50% of the money take will be used to fund the program. The other 50% will be refunded unless there are court costs, fines and restitution to be paid. Rarely are there no court costs or fines, so guess where the remaining money will go. The implementation will take time and each district will have to develop it’s own procedures. However, the impact on bail agents will be severe and they will disappear from those districts.

So what, you say? People will be able to deposit money to the courts and get out of jail. What’s the difference? Customer service is the difference. I’ve built my business by offering a better service and that will go away if this bill passes. What will happen to the process will make the department of motor vehicles look like greased lightening. Let’s look at the anatomy of a bail bond.

When someone is arrested, they are supposed to get a phone call to a friend or family member. Sometimes they are able to convey which jail and what the charges and bond are. Sometimes they aren’t. Frequently, I receive calls from family members and they think someone is in jail but they don’t know where or why. They don’t have much to go on. I’ve been able to learn how to work the systems of the various counties and quickly find out where the person is detained, the bond and the charges. The majority of people won’t know how to do that and will have to call the jails until they find the right one. When they do, they may not get to talk to a person. Many of the jails have automated systems that ask you questions about what you are looking for and respond accordingly. The biggest problem with these systems is that they don’t work well with cell phones. They tell you to call back on a landline. Aren’t most people getting rid of landlines? Jails are installing systems so that they don’t have to answer the phone and the systems don’t work well with the citizens’ phone of choice. I’ve learned how to work around these systems, but most people haven’t had exposure to them. In addition, it can take several hours before one is booked into the jail and the information is entered into the system. This is a prescription for disaster. If people cannot call, or cannot get the information they are looking for, they will visit the jail to get the information. The jail staff will have to adjust to deal with these people.

On most bonds, I meet with the family at the jail. I do this because it is easier to deal with the unexpected when the family is present. Sometimes the bond information in the system is wrong and the mistake is discovered at the time of posting the bond. Bond amounts change, other charges are found or the types of bond can change, just to name a few.

Sometimes I meet the family at another location. I’ve met them in their homes, at their work, in hospitals and at churches. That convenience will go away and they will all have to go to the jails. It doesn’t sound too bad until you realize that most of these folks will be going to the jails when they are off work. Most people don’t want to miss work to get someone out of jail. That’s why I meet them at their work or during a lunch break. Evenings at the jails are going to be very crowded and the level of frustration will make a trip to the dmv seem like a picnic.

Expert bail agents have learned how to work the system and make things go smoother. Even then, it can take a couple of hours to post a bond. Take the experts out of the mix and replace them with people who have never done it before. They will have many questions about the process and those questions will have to be answered by the jail staff. This will slow an already slow process and nobody gets out of jail until it is complete. How will that affect jail overcrowding?

Proponents of the bill say that it will have minimal impact on personnel. I’d venture to say that those proponents have never posted a bond and don’t understand the process and have no idea of the impact. Most jails take between 2-6 hours, after the bond is posted, to release someone from custody. What is going to happen if they have to spend more time answering questions from people who have never posted a bond?

Another key service that I provide, walk-thru bonds, will go away. I frequently receive calls from people who have learned that they have a warrant for their arrest and they want to take care of it without having to go to jail. Some of the counties allow walk-thru bonds, but many don’t. I have learned how to work around those that don’t. People call me and tell me that they have called the courts and have been told to “come on down” or “turn yourself in to the jail”. They don’t want to go to jail and don’t trust the “come on down” because they believe that they will be arrested. I am able to gain their trust by explaining the process of a walk-thru bond and help them deal with the warrant without having to go to jail. If I go away, either the courts will have to adjust and permit people to post walk-thru bonds or the number of warrants will increase. Proponents of the bill say that it will have minimal impact on personnel. Either the courts will have to do these bonds and will need additional staff or the warrants will increase and law enforcement will have to have more personnel to deal with them.

I run a small business. In order to survive, I must find ways to streamline the process, offer a higher level of service and maximize my efficiency. Referral customers are essential and I won’t get referrals unless I take a bad situation and make it as unpleasant as possible by treating people well. Do customer service, streamline the process, higher level of service and maximize efficiency sound like terms that are frequently found in the vocabulary of those running the jails, courts or DMV? Do the jails, courts or DMV care about referrals? Take a number…

Here is a copy of an email that I sent to all of the Senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to vote no on SB 11-186.

Dear Senator …,

I am writing to you in opposition to SB 11-186. I am a former pretrial services investigator, former deputy sheriff criminal investigator and a current bail bond agent. I have a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a masters’s degree in family relations. I expect that you will hear from very few on this issue who have similar education and experience.

Sheriff Grayson Robinson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that the “system is broken” and the “same old things” don’t work. I would agree with Sheriff Robinson that there are problems that need work, but I disagree that the system is broken and that SB 11-186 is the solution.

When a person is incarcerated, there are a number of ways in which he may be released from custody pending trial. The judge may decide to issue a personal recognizance bond. The family may post a cash bond. They may use property to post a property bond, if the judicial district permits such bonds. The family may purchase a surety bail bond from a retail bail agent. Finally, pretrial services may seek to release those who cannot meet any of the above.

SB 11-186 proposes to add an alternative bond where the defendant may pay a sum directly to the court. This is an area already served by the surety bail agent and would force them to compete with government, a competition they would surely lose.

I began my career in the criminal justice system as a pretrial services investigator. Our assignment was to interview everyone who was incarcerated with the purpose of locating those who could not afford a bail bond but were considered to be a good risk for a supervised release. Insiders know that the stated goal of pretrial services is to eliminate commercial bail. However, what is publicly stated are the goals to decrease jail overcrowding by releasing the indigent and enhancing public safety.

Release statistics were critical to the program. We completed a monthly report of interviews, releases, failure to appear rates and money that we “saved” the county. I quickly learned that the indigent were in that condition because of their mental health and/or drug issues. In addition, their failure to appear rates were too high and reflected poorly on the program. Our best candidate for release was also the best candidate for the bail agent. We competed for the same client and moved away from our stated goal of releasing the indigent. We needed to keep our statistics looking good.

I did my job well, had an excellent reputation but became disenchanted with the program. I sought and received a promotion to a sworn position in the Sheriff’s department. I did well and moved to positions of increasing responsibility. I started as a patrol deputy, was promoted to property crimes investigator and finally to a sex crimes investigator and hostage negotiator. I learned that most of the people who remain in jail do so because of a number of issues. Many have mental health issues. Others have drug problems. Many are violent. Jail populations are increasing because these are people that no one wants. SB 11-186 will do nothing to solve these problems, but will serve to reduce the bail agent population.

Proponents of this bill say that it will enhance public safety because pretrial services monitor their clients and bail agents don’t. Personally, I monitor my clients through family members who have a financial stake in the bond. In addition, I use GPS monitors when I think that it’s appropriate. If alcohol or drug use become a problem, I do the same thing that pretrial services does – I revoke the bond. The difference is that I arrest the defendant and return him to the jail. Pretrial services requests a revocation, a warrant is issued and they wait for law enforcement to arrest the defendant.

Let’s be clear about what this bill will do. It is not going to provide an alternative bond, it is going to replace a bond that already exists. It will eliminate commercial bail and replace it with a government program. It is not going to enhance public safety. The public safety concern is the realm of the judge who decides whether there is a bond and the amount. It will eliminate bail agent businesses and use the money to fund pretrial services.

I urge you to vote no on SB 11-186

Al Perna
Aloha Bail Bonds

Earlier this week a bill was introduced in the State Legislature entitled Concerning the establishment of an Alternative Bond Program. SB 11-186 provides that a judicial district may establish a deposit bail bond program that would work as follows. A judge would set the amount and type of bail that a defendant had to post. The new alternative bond would be posted directly to the court, not a bail agent, and would be administered by the pretrial services agency. The bill stipulates that 50% of the money would go toward the administration of the program and the other 50% would be available to be returned to the defendant unless there are court costs, fines or restitution to be paid. Make no mistake about it, little will ever be returned to a defendant as there are almost always court costs and fines assessed.

A hearing was conducted before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the room was so full of interested citizens that the meeting had to be moved the the old Supreme Court room. At one point, committee Chair, Senator Morgan Carroll asked all who opposed the bill to stand. Almost all stood. Opponents and proponents had the opportunity to testify. Bail agents said the bill would put them out of business. Insurance companies said the they would leave the state. Proponents of the bill testified that would not happen.

Interesting. Small business owners said that they would go out of business. Companies that insure the small businesses said that they would leave the state. However, government lawyers said that would not be the case. Who knows more about whether they can remain in business than the small business owner and the companies that work with them?

The proponents also said that the bill would increase public safety. This will be accomplished by “monitoring” the defendants more closely than bail agents do. What this really means is that people on deposit bonds who are supervised by pretrial services will be forced to pay for services such as meetings, random blood and/urine tests for alcohol and other substances. These are people that have yet to be convicted.

Denver Post columnist, Bill Johnson wrote and article Switch in bail-bond rules would ensure less safety calling this bill “one of the most appalling pieces of legislation of the session.”  ”…people basically will have to wear the scarlet letter jewelry of the convicted, and undergo and pay for classes and tests despite being convicted of absolutely nothing…SB 186 is nothing more than a desperate money grab by a hopelessly cash-strapped state government that for some reason now believes it can do a job that is being effectively handled by private companies and citizens.”

Despite the overwhelming opposition in the room, the bill made it through the committee by a vote of 6 to 2. Does government really listen to the people anymore?

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British Statesman, Philosopher and philosophical founder of the modern political conservatism stated “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” An article in The Boulder Daily Camera, Lowering Bonds for non-violent offenders timely, compassionate published on 2/20/11, tells a story of how Boulder County is heading for the same problems facing the State of Oregon and the City of Philadelphia. This type of bail does not work.

Simply stated, the program, often called deposit bail, is implemented as follows. Instead of the defendant’s family having to purchase a $1000 bail bond from a bail agent for $150, the defendant will pay $150 directly to the county. He will receive a court date and is expected to show up in court. If he doesn’t a warrant for his arrest will be issued. The big difference is that the defendant’s family and a bail agent are not in the picture. If the family purchases a $1000 bail bond and the defendant does not appear in court, the family and the bail agent have a financial interest in locating him and getting him into court. They will work together to find him and get him to court, or they will have to pay $1000. Under the deposit bail system, the defendant pays his $150, walks out the door and there is no bail agent or family who have an interest in his appearance. If he doesn’t appear in court, a warrant is issued and it is expected that there will be some law enforcement contact down the road and he will be arrested.

The State of Oregon eliminated commercial bail in 1973 and implemented a deposit bail system. The fallout from that decision is that there is a tremendous number of unexecuted arrest warrants in the system that law enforcement has been unable to serve. Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney, Chuck French stated, “If I were a criminal, I’d just be laughing.” It’s a great system for the offender, pay a paltry sum, get out of jail, don’t go to court and then wait for an over-loaded Sheriff’s department to serve the arrest warrant. An article published in the Willamette Week on March 5, 2008 called Manhunter offers an excellent explanation of the problems Oregon is facing verses the situation across the border in Vancouver, Washington. Oregon is giving serious consideration to reinstating commercial bail to help resolve these problems.

The City of Philadelphia is also faced with the problems created by a deposit bail system that doesn’t work. Philadelphia Deputy District Attorney, John P. Delaney Jr., says “The bail system is a complete cartoon.” The Philadelphia Inquirer has published a series of articles on the problems that the city faces because of this failed system. Justice: Delayed, Dismissed, Denied. The city is inundated with unexecuted arrest warrants and uncollectible forfeitures.

Unpublished reports indicate that Jefferson County is experimenting with a similar type of program. Bail Agents have noticed and increased number of cash only bonds similar to a deposit bond system. The difference is that they apparently recognize that they have no chance of collecting on a forfeiture. The belief is that they will be saving money by reducing jail over-crowding. However, the failure to appear rate will increase and the increased number of arrest warrants will place a burden on the Sheriff’s department which will have to increase the number of deputies serving warrants.

Let’s not fail to recognize human nature here. Court appearance rates are better when a family and bail agent with a financial incentive exercise influence over a defendant to appear in court than a system that lets him out by paying a small sum and no one else is involved.

Aloha Bail Bonds

I received an email from wanted fugitive, Jeremy VanTrump. He is not happy with my post on this page and is accusing me of slander and harassment. He argues that I omitted the nature of the original charges. In the interest of transparency, I will tell you that Jeremy failed to appear in court to answer for tickets that he received for his dog running free. Three warrants were issued for his arrest and he was arrested in Jefferson County. So, he’s sitting in a cage in Jefferson County and his dog is home running free. Ironic, isn’t it?

Jeremy’s family posted bond and he failed to appear in court in Clear Creek County. Three warrants were issued for his arrest and the charge is Fugitive of Justice. Are you happy, Jeremy? When are you going to take care of it?

I receive a lot of telemarketing calls. I hate telemarketing calls. Yesterday, I received a call that beats all telemarketing calls…for now.

This guy gets me on the line and wants to stop by and offer me protection. He tells me ” I watch ‘Dog’ religiously, so I know how dangerous your job is. I just want to stop by and offer you some protections because your job is so dangerous”.

First of all, don’t tell me that you understand reality because you watch television. That just tells me you are a moron. Secondly, do I really want to meet with a moron? I ask  him what type of protection he is talking about. He hedges a bit by telling me that he is meeting with all of the other bondsmen in town. That really makes me feel important. He watches “Dog” and is talking to all of the bondsmen in town.

Once again, I ask him what type of protection he is offering. He replies “pre-arranged funerals” because he knows how dangerous my job is because he watches television.

Are you kidding me? Protection against what? Well, a pre-arranged funeral “protects” me against price increases. It seems that a life insurance policy backs the arrangements and pays for the funeral when I die. So, I’m “protected”.

I tell him that I’m not interested and hang up. My family knows to cremate my remains, as cheaply as possible, and take a vacation to Hawaii and dump me in the ocean somewhere. However, his call really got me thinking. Might there be a market for pre-arranged bail bonds? Think about the protection that would offer? I wish I had kept his number so I could call him back.

George Tucker as he is release from the Denver Jail

George Thomas Tucker, pictured above, is wanted for failure to appear in court for driving under restraint. He has an extensive history of DUI and driving without a valid license.

He is described as follows: 6’2″ tall, 230 lbs with blue eyes and gray hair. His DOB is 5/31/1942.

Mr. Tucker has a history of alcohol driving related offenses and may be described as a functional alcoholic. He works as an engineering consultant and was believed to be working in the Houston, TX area. He reported his specialty to be in power plant design and had been working with ThyssenKrupp while in Denver.

If you have any information regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Tucker, please call 720-284-9764. You may be eligible for a reward.