Pretrial - Release
"State legislatures consider and enact laws that address all aspects of pretrial policy, including release eligibility, conditions of release, bail, commercial bail bonding and pretrial diversion. These legislative policies have an important role in providing fair, efficient and safe pretrial practices carried out by law enforcement and the courts" (p. 1). Brief descriptions are provided for the following legislative: citation in lieu of arrest; pretrial release eligibility; guidance for setting release conditions; pretrial release conditions; pretrial detention; bail bond agent licensure; bail bond agent business practices; bail forfeiture procedures; recovery agents (aka bounty hunters); victims' rights and protections; and pretrial diversion.
"This study is the first to examine the participation of county jails in pretrial release. The report identifies the pretrial status and risk level of the county jail population and variations across counties of different population sizes. Further, this research analyzes the challenges that county jails face with their pretrial and overall jail population. The study details to what extent county jails use community based programs to release pretrial detainees from confinement in jail and supervise them in the community. In addition, the research examines the presence of other county policies and practices that may result in the release of the pretrial population from jail. This report provides a first step in understanding the role of counties in pretrial release" (p. 7). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; key terms; Finding 1—the majority of the jail population is pretrial and low risk; Finding 2—counties are caught between courts' decision-making and increases in the jail population and jail costs; Finding 3—some county jails supervise pretrial detainees outside of confinement; and conclusion.
This report explores three Maryland jurisdictions—St. Mary’s County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore City—that are leading the way in improving pretrial justice in the state. The information included here comes from the heads of each jurisdiction’s pretrial service agency, with input solicited from local public defenders working with those systems. Along the way, the authors highlight strategies that other counties can use to make their local pretrial systems more effective. While each of these jurisdictions can be used as a model for others to follow, it is important to note that no single county yet has perfect pretrial practices, and there is always more room for improvement to bring about a fairer, safer, and more effective pretrial justice system
This report provides information regarding the implementation of these various aspects of Criminal Justice Reform (CJR). It also quantifies, from several different perspectives, the statistical results of CJR after one year of operation. The initial sections examine the impact of the risk assessment tool on pretrial release decisions and the Judiciary’s compliance with the 48-hour timeframe for making such decisions. Empirical evidence shows data on the performance of the program from arrest through pretrial monitoring, including the number of defendants released together with the conditions of their release. Finally, the report tracks prosecutorial and judicial decisions as they relate to pretrial detention applications
As part of Senate Bill 201, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) was required to study the feasibility of contracting with a third-party contract administrator for global position system (GPS) monitoring that would include a crime scene correlation program that could interface by link with a statewide database for GPS-monitored offenders. The system under consideration would allow law enforcement agents to remotely search a statewide database that includes all offenders placed on GPS monitoring, to access information regarding the offenders’ current and prior locations without a subpoena or warrant, and to access information pertaining to the offenders’ proximity to locations where a crime has been reported. ODRC contracted with the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) and the University of Cincinnati Institute for Crime Science (ICS) to conduct this study.
Read the Executive Summary
"Most of the nation’s bail laws mandate – and NAPSA and the American Bar Association recommend through their respective standards – defendants be released pretrial under the least restrictive conditions required to ensure the defendant attends all future court dates and does not commit any new law violations while out of custody pending case disposition. In most jurisdictions, “least restrictive” is defined as release back into the community, either on the defendant’s own recognizance or under court-ordered conditions of supervision. In addition to helping ensure the fair and prompt administration of justice, “pretrial release” allows a defendant to remain in the community providing for his/her family and aiding in his/her defense pending case disposition. Pretrial release further ensures those defendants who do not pose a risk to the community are able to be released from custody even if they have no financial means. Research verifies that lower risk defendants detained unnecessarily during the pretrial process show a significant likelihood that their risk for recidivism increases as a result."
"State laws provide a framework for judges and other local officials to determine who is eligible for [pretrial] release and under what conditions. In recent years, state legislation has concentrated largely on individualizing the pretrial process by focusing on specific defendants or offense categories. From 2012 to 2014, 261 new laws in 47 states addressed pretrial policy" (p. 1). This document provides an overview of these legislative enactments. Sections cover pretrial legislation by: risk assessments; victim-specific procedures; victim-specific conditions; pretrial services; and diversion. A chart shows types of release conditions enacted, with states listed in columns according to financial, substance related, electronic monitoring, victim protection, and other conditions. There is also a circle chart showing the types of diversion programs addressed by states—drug, mental health, veteran, non-population specific, human trafficking, and property crimes.