In a distributed choice discharged Monday, the Court of Appeals of Indiana decided for the offended party, Melissa Kay Sneed on account of Sneed v. State and against Decatur County on the issue of whether the court ought to have conceded her demand to post a safeguard bond in lieu of a money security.
For safeguard bond operators in Indiana this decision is long past due. An excessive number of judges in Indiana have declined a respondent’s choice of posting a safeguard bond and rather have requested a bond as a full money security or a small money store of 10% (with the adjust of the security being unsecured).
In my view this choice will require judges in districts right now shut to safeguard bonds, for example, Tarrant County bail bonds St. Joseph, Bartholomew, Vanderburg and Marshall to start enabling pretrial prisoners to pick to post a safeguard bond instead of full money or a store security.
This ought to be welcome news to occupants and all the more imperatively casualties in these provinces shut to safeguard bonds who have since quite a while ago persevered through their nearby nonchalance for the privileges of casualties and inhabitants by not utilizing the best discharge alternative for guaranteeing a litigant returns for court, a safeguard bond.
As Sneed v. State plainly states, “… when the litigant can store the whole measure of the money safeguard without the assistance of a bondsman, it is not likely anybody will seek after the respondent in the event that he or she chooses to skip town preceding trial.” Bail Agents, whose securities are supported by insurance agencies, have a monetary enthusiasm for getting a respondent, who has slipped off, back to court.
This is a decent day for the safeguard business in Indiana and I can’t resist the urge to quote that tremendously insulted comedic on-screen character Charlie Sheen, and shout, “Winning”!