Against the will of 9 million California voters, of which are Roseville Bail Bond voters, State Senator Hertzberg has substantially amended Senate Bill 262 on August 30, 2021, to create a Sacramento-knows-best, one-size-fits-all criminal justice disaster.
The California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA) remains opposed to Senate Bill 262, stating that the bill puts public safety and crime victims at risk and would make it much more likely that a person will be released pending trial. “Last year, we saw the danger in a $0 bail system as defendants in juristictions around California were released and subsequently re-arrested, sometimes within hours of release on $0 bail,” states the California Sate Sheriff’s Association in a letter posted to All Members of the California State Assembly.
Common sense says SB 262 makes no sense, to California or Roseville Bail Bonds residents. Posted below are 6 Talking Points about California Senate Bill 262.
1. Senate Bill 262 Lacks Flexibility for Local Needs
Senate Bill 262 takes away local control from counties and cities to fight specific crimes they may want to focus on. With a population of 1,100 people, Alpine County doesn’t have the same crime problems as Los Angeles County or San Francisco, Roseville Bail Bonds, or bail bonds near me.
SB 262 requires that the Judicial Council create a statewide bailsbond schedule taking away the authority and power from locally elected judges who have a better understanding of local issues for Roseville Bail Bonds and crime waves and what bail bond amount should be set for DUI bail bonds.
2. Senate Bill 262 Ignores Aggravating Factors
When creating the statewide bailbond schedule, SB 262 prohibits the consideration of bail bond enhancements for Roseville Bail Bonds and aggravating factors like use of a gun, victimizing a child or elderly person, or inflicting great bodily injury, which includes mutilating victims by throwing acid in their faces or burning them.
3. California Judicial County Bail Bond Study
Senate Bill 262 ignores the California Judicial County bail bond study (Pretrial Pilot Program, July 9, 2021), which found that out of nearly 3,000 criminal defendants, “30 percent failed to appear in court as required and 40 percent were arrested for a new offense.” That’s 30 percent that did not have a bail bond in place for Roseville Bail Bonds.
4. Failures of Similar Bail Bonds Legislation
Senate Bill 262 ignores the failures of similar bail bond legislation in other states. This type of bail legislation has been a disaster in other states – Alaska and New York substantially rolled their bail bondsmen reform back, and Utah repealed it completely.
5. Lack of Adequate Resources in our Court System
This bill’s 2/3rds urgency clause will bankrupt and cause chaos in local trial courts. California’s local Roseville Bail Bond court system does not have the finances, staff, facilities, or procedures to conduct lengthy bail bond hearings (mini court trails) required for EVERY arrestee to determine “ability to pay” and whether money bail would cause “substantial hardship.”
6. California State Constitution – Proposition 103
SB 262 violates the State Constitution – Proposition 103. The California Supreme Court found in Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) (11 Cal.4th 1243) that any rate setting, or rate reduction, must comply with the California Insurance Commissioner’s duty in determining if action on an insurance rate “results in a confiscatory rate,” which is not permitted. (Id. at 1262.) The Court noted that the Commissioner is required to ensure that a “rate provided a fair and reasonable return on the insurer’s investment.” (Id.) Any legislative action that interferes with the Commissioner’s duty in this respect “fails to further the purposes of Proposition 103” and thus, cannot be validly enacted. (Id. at 1263.)