Bail reform bills moving through Alabama Legislature in final days of session
Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, looks over to a colleague while standing on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 12, 2025 in the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. England is sponsoring a bill that would give judges the power to allow those in pretrial detention to pay a percentage of a bond for release. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
Two bills that would change Alabama's bail system are working their way through the Legislature in the waning days of the 2025 session.
The Senate Judiciary Committee hosted a public hearing Wednesday for HB 42, sponsored by Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, which gives judges the authority to allow defendants to pay a portion of their total bond to be released from pretrial detention.
HB 410, sponsored by Rep. Shane Stringer, R-Citronelle, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, modifies the composition of the Alabama Professional Bail Bonding Board, expands the exemptions for the fees that bail bond companies must pay the court, increases penalties for bail jumping and adds more regulations for bail bond companies when they operate in another state.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A message was sent to Stringer Monday seeking comment.
HB 42 has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The House is scheduled to vote on HB 410 on Tuesday. England's bill adds three words, 'a part of' back into an Alabama statute that were removed when the same Legislature enacted the Alabama Bail Reform Act of 1993.
The removal of the words meant judges in the state could not allow defendants to pay a percentage of their bond to get release from pretrial detention.
'What that translates into is a large amount of money that would normally go to the court system, instead of going to the court system, it goes to a bondsman,' England said to the committee Wednesday.
People can secure their release after an arrest if they pay a bail bond company. The premium, which is typically 10% of the total amount of the bond, is paid to the bail bond company, which then must ensure the individuals go to their court appearances.
The money that people pay when released on a percentage bond would be retained by the court and kept if defendants fail to appear for their court dates.
The Alabama Bail Bond Association has been a vocal opponent of the bill, speaking out against the legislation at a March public hearing and the House Judiciary Committee considered it then and eventually approved the bill a week later.
Victor Howard, vice president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association and bail bond company owner, said that enacting the legislation would reduce accountability for defendants to appear for their court dates.
Chris McNeil, the president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association, suggested Monday in an interview that the rates that people would not appear for court would increase. He also cited records from the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts saying that people who paid cash to be released from pretrial detention in 2022 and 2023 had a failure to appear (FTA) rate of 55%.
'The court just can't function when you have a failure to appear rate of 55%,' McNeil said Monday. 'The bonding companies were averaging about a 14%-15% failure to appear rate. And were able to trim that rate by returning defendants back to court.'
England told the committee that the numbers do not present a fair comparison to percentage bonds.
'The numbers are obviously going to be off because there are more people on smaller offenses with cash bonds versus somebody who is on a large bond with a bondsman,' England said to the committee on Wednesday. 'Obviously, there is going to be a higher number of FTAs on smaller cases, traffic tickets, because they all count.'
Jerome Dees, policy director from the Southern Poverty Law Center, supported the legislation.
'The vast majority of times when there was an FTA that was ultimately secured, and the defendant showed up in court, it largely was due to law enforcement bringing that individual in and not the bail bond company,' he said to the committee on Wednesday. 'That is not to say that it never happened, but the vast majority of time it was law enforcement bringing that particular individual in.'
McNeil said in an interview Monday he supports HB 410, Stringer's bill.
'It expands the Alabama Professional Bail Bonding Board by adding a sheriff to the board, adding a layperson, so I think that is very important,' he said.
It also states that any fees that bail bond companies pay to the court that have not been deposited within 90 days and that have an expiration date 'shall be deemed uncollected' and will no longer hold the bail bond company responsible for making the payment.
The bill also exempts bail bond companies from fees that the courts or district attorneys have not attempted to collect past one year from the original due date.
HB 410 also adds more conditions such that the bail bond company will not pay a fee, known as forfeiture, to the court when in cases that the defendant fails to appear in court.
McNeil said the bill would cancel that forfeiture payment if someone was not placed in the National Crime Information Center and failed to appear in court, or if the bail bond company brings back a defendant that the jail refuses to accept.
The bill also addresses instances when an individual travels out of state and enhances the penalty for bail jumping, going from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
42 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
UK Confronts Hard Reality of Rebuilding Its Military Prowess
Britain's ammunition production begins life in the ancestral town of George Washington. Hundreds of technicians and robots work around the clock to manufacture the empty shells that are then filled with explosives and fired from a range of artillery systems. The BAE Systems Plc plant in northeast England is operating 24/7 for the first time since the invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago. But the urgency of replenishing stocks of basic ordnance betrays just how far Britain's defense capabilities have fallen, and the scale of the task to restore them.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
New Mexico appeals court rejects lawsuit against oil and gas regulators
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico appeals court rejected a lawsuit alleging that the nation's No. 2 oil-producing state failed to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas industry pollution, in an opinion Tuesday. Environmental advocates vowed to appeal the matter to the state's top court. A panel of three judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that it was beyond the judiciary's authority to weigh whether the pollution controls are adequate, writing that the state Constitution directs the Legislature to balance the benefits of environmental regulation with natural resources development. The 2023 lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups was the first to invoke the constitution's pollution-control clause, a 1971 amendment requiring that New Mexico prevent the contamination of air, water and other natural resources. 'While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the 'Land of Enchantment,' the state's beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders,' the panel wrote, invoking the state motto. 'If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.' Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead counsel on the case, said Tuesday's opinion would dismiss the case entirely if unchallenged and 'displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.' She said plaintiffs intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,' Evans said. The court challenge comes as New Mexico's state government rides a wave of record income from development in the Permian Basin, one of the world's most productive, oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections underwrite a considerable amount of the state's budget , including public education. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration is policing the industry with regulations that target methane and other emissions. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. Attorneys for the Democratic-led Legislature and environmental regulators said the lawsuit threatened their constitutional authority. Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued an additional concurring opinion, expressing further limitations of the pollution control clause. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Bruno Fernandes rejecting Saudi Arabia is good news – and not just for Manchester United
It's easy to get annoyed at Bruno Fernandes. As an on-pitch presence, he's not especially likeable. His face seems permanently set to 'complaint' mode. He nags at referees. There was that undignified episode when Manchester United lost 7-0 to Liverpool a couple of years ago and he essentially threw a tantrum on the pitch. Advertisement But, as much as anything, that just illustrates something we all know: that on-pitch manners do not necessarily maketh the man. You hear plenty of stories about Bruno being a good guy, which at the very least balances the apparent petulance, most notably his attempt to pay for United staff to attend the FA Cup final after their free travel and accommodation were nixed as part of Big Jim Ratcliffe's cost-cutting drive. He also tends to be the one who 'fronts up' to the media after United defeats, when most of the time he's the least of their problems. That might feel minor, but doing it means one of his younger, more junior, probably struggling team-mates doesn't have to. Fernandes currently plays for a particularly bleak type of football institution: one that's rich and high profile, and thus commands a lot of attention, but one that can't win games, and is run by people who seem intent on flushing any goodwill they might have down the toilet through redundancies, price rises, cutting charitable grants and whatever else they have planned in the name of austerity. This is a club that has been carried on the pitch by their best player and captain for longer than he probably cares to remember, and one that you have little confidence is going to turn things around any time soon. In short, you wouldn't blame Fernandes for desperately grabbing at any plausible life raft that happens to float past. Which brings us to his decision to turn down Al Hilal this week. 'It would have been an easy move,' Fernandes said at a Portugal press conference on Monday evening. 'I had Ruben Neves and Joao Cancelo there, two people I have a great friendship with. But I want to stay at the highest level, play in big competitions, because I still feel capable. I want to keep being happy, I'm still very passionate about this sport, and I'm happy with my decision.' Advertisement Fernandes was reportedly offered a contract that would have more than doubled his already significant wages to move to Saudi Arabia, with Al Hilal also apparently prepared to pay a £80million ($108m) transfer fee to extract him. Most United fans will naturally be delighted. Not only do they keep their best player, but they will be protected from the dispiriting prospect of their club probably frittering away a crucial windfall; of all the clubs you would trust to cash in on their star man and use the money to responsibly beef up their squad, United are at the bottom of the list. But the rest of us in Britain, Europe, the non-Saudi world, should be pleased, too. It is, on the most basic level, refreshing to see someone have the conviction to turn down that amount of money. I can't confidently say that I would. If you can, then fair play to you. Fernandes' representatives met with Al Hilal, so we can assume that he didn't turn the offer down on moral grounds, otherwise he might not have even entertained it. It's also true that it's easier to reject that kind of approach when you already earn £250,000-a-week at one of the world's biggest clubs. Fernandes is not exactly hard up. But it's still pleasing that a player has not signed up to the Saudi project; someone of standing has rejected being a representative of the ultimate purpose of their move into sport, whether you call it sportswashing, soft power or something less charitable. The players that have agreed to move to the Saudi Pro League so far have generally fallen into three categories: ageing legends in decline, like Cristiano Ronaldo or Sadio Mane; excellent-but-not-quite-elite types in roughly their peak years, like Ruben Neves, Ivan Toney or Aleksandar Mitrovic; and relative journeymen, such as your Daniel Podences or Georges-Kevin N'Koudous. Advertisement What they haven't really yet managed to snag is a genuinely elite player at the peak of his powers from one of the elite clubs; a player who could probably slot happily into most top European teams and who represents a legitimate loss to one of the 'legacy' leagues. You could argue Karim Benzema (who was the reigning Ballon d'Or holder when he joined Al Ittihad) or Riyad Mahrez (fresh from Manchester City's treble-winning season) fit into this category, but they were 35 and 32 respectively when they made their moves. Fernandes is 30, but still performing as if in his prime, so would probably have been the SPL's biggest coup from a purely football perspective, if not a PR one. As it is, one of the Premier League's best players is staying in the Premier League, and will continue playing at a level of competition that befits his ability. Whether it's for that reason, or a sign that not everybody can be bought, or that not everyone can be persuaded to represent state project — take your pick — this should be celebrated. This is all said with the caveat that Fernandes is staying… for now. We have been in this position before, where someone turns down a move to Saudi Arabia initially, only to reconsider. Steven Gerrard, who rejected an offer to become Al Ettifaq manager in June 2023 then joined them the following month, springs to mind. This article might look pretty silly if Fernandes flip-flops. He also isn't necessarily staying at United: should a competent European team make him and United an attractive offer, he may still leave. We also shouldn't pretend he's a saint who is sticking around purely for altruistic reasons, for the history of a proud football club that he simply can't abandon. He has made this decision for essentially the same reason that all of those players who have moved to Saudi: because it is in the best interests of him and his family. If a better alternative presents itself, he will probably take it, and rightly so. But for now, Bruno Fernandes is not moving to Saudi Arabia, and we should welcome that fact.
