Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bail Procedures Statute Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New state rule means some people charged with violent crimes will wait for bail hearings, local judge says
Summary
A judge told the Community Corrections Advisory Board and JRAP that a state statute effective July 1 requires people arrested for certain alleged violent offenses with victims to remain in custody until a bail hearing in open court, a change that will likely lengthen some jail stays by about 12–48 hours and require scheduling adjustments.
A new state statutory subsection that took effect July 1 requires that people arrested on certain alleged violent offenses involving a victim remain in custody until they have a bail hearing in open court, Judge Mitch Tate told the Community Corrections Advisory Board and the Joint Re-Entry and Probation (JRAP) meeting. The change means some people who previously could post bail immediately will instead be placed on the judge’s next-day bond calendar for a hearing before they can be released.
The change matters because it affects jail population, court scheduling and victim notice procedures, Judge Tate said. He said the court will place people arrested on covered charges on his 12:30 p.m. calendar the next day for a bond hearing and that, in many cases, the person will return later for an initial hearing after prosecutors file charges.
Judge Tate summarized the scope and operational effect in the meeting: “They have added a second subsection … as of July 1 to that statute that includes basically any alleged crime that has a victim and is a violent crime,” and “they can't even pay their bail until they had a bail hearing in open court.” He read the statute number into the record as “35 33 8 6 1 5.” He added that when prosecutors have filed charges within 24 hours, the court can hold the bond hearing and initial hearing together; otherwise, people will be brought back once charges are filed.
The board discussed expected timing and workload effects. Judge Tate estimated the change will typically extend an arrest-to-release period by about 12 to 24 hours and, in some holiday or weekend cases, up to 48 to 72 hours: “I think you're gonna see a 12 to 24 hour longer in the jail than what we've previously been doing,” he said. He also said the change will increase courtroom time for bail hearings but did not forecast a major operational disruption: “It's gonna increase workload a little bit, but I don't foresee it correctly, like, a lot.”
Captain Decker provided a contemporaneous custody snapshot to the group: “Total in in jail is 310 and 23 out,” which the board used to frame potential population effects. Members pressed for more precise counts of which bookings would be affected; Judge Tate said he did not have exact numbers for how many current bookings are misdemeanor or domestic-battery cases that would be held under the new rule.
Some meeting participants raised policy and victim-notification concerns. Meeting participant (name not specified) said the new hearing schedule should still ensure victims and the state receive notice and an opportunity to be heard: “If we're gonna reshuffle this at all, we need to make sure the state has notice and the victim has notice and opportunity to be heard at that new bail hearing.” Judge Tate said prosecutors and public defenders are routinely aware of the 12:30 calendar and that the court would still be constrained by constitutional requirements to have a defendant before a judge within 72 hours.
Community members at the meeting also cautioned about framing operational impacts as cost savings: Mister McCann said he was concerned about talking about meal counts when the statute requires the holds. The judge acknowledged such concerns and that the change is designed to ensure hearings occur, even if that means slightly longer custody periods.
There was no formal action by the board to change policy; the discussion was informational and focused on operational implementation. The board agreed to notify victim‑assistance staff about the scheduled bond hearings to help with victim notice and to incorporate the new holding requirement into court and jail procedures.
The statute cited during the meeting was read into the record as “35 33 8 6 1 5.” Board members also discussed the constitutional requirement to bring arrestees before a judge within 72 hours. The meeting did not adopt any local ordinance or policy change at the session; Judge Tate described how the court intends to comply with the new state provision.
