Bill would require courts to provide sureties copies of warrants, change forfeiture and remittance rules

Senate Bill 157 would require courts to make copies of warrants issued for failure to appear available to a compensated surety who deposited the appearance bond, and would change forfeiture and remittance rules for appearance bonds, the House Committee on Judiciary heard.

Jason Thompson, adviser in the Revisor—s Office, briefed the committee that SB 157 (KSA 22-2807) makes several changes to the statute governing forfeiture of appearance bonds. Thompson said the bill, as amended in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, clarifies that the court (not the sheriff) is responsible for making a copy of a failure-to-appear warrant available to the surety. He also said the bill would add deportation as a basis to set aside a forfeiture, would remove the requirement that the defendant be arrested for the prosecuting attorney to decline extradition in some circumstances, and would require the court to remit 95% of the bond to the obligor if the defendant is returned to custody within 180 days after judgment (the Senate passed the bill 31 to 9).

Why it matters: Supporters said the changes would help sureties demonstrate whether warrants were issued within statutorily required timeframes, would create a clearer deportation defense in limited circumstances and would create an incentive structure to encourage sureties to find and return defendants to custody more quickly.

Shane Rolfe, executive vice president of the Kansas Bail Agents Association, testified in support and described three main changes his industry favors: (1) making a copy of the warrant available to the surety upon request (to support out-of-state apprehensions and compliance checks), (2) adding a deportation defense but limiting it to cases where a defendant was not subject to an immigration detainer at the time the bond was posted, and (3) creating a statewide remittance schedule so sureties have an incentive to locate defendants. Rolfe proposed a sliding remittance schedule in his written testimony: 90% if returned within 90 days, 75% if returned within 91 to 180 days, and 50% if returned within 181 to 270 days. He said the 95% figure reported from the Senate should be 90% to match his proposal.

Aaron Breitenbach, representing the Sedgwick County district attorney—s office, testified remotely as a neutral witness. Breitenbach said proponents— red-line changes addressed many of his office—s concerns and that moving the —upon request— language would avoid imposing burdensome clerical duties on courts. He asked the committee to consider adding language that would allow a court to deny setting aside a forfeiture where a preponderance of the evidence shows a surety or its agent knew an immigration detainer was imminent when the bond was posted; he described recorded jail calls and other factual avenues his office could use to prove such knowledge.

Committee members debated the remittance schedule and whether the proposed percentages should be mandatory floors or caps. Breitenbach said the proposed schedule essentially sets a floor and that courts would retain discretion to remit higher amounts based on evidence; proponents and the neutral witness both said the schedule would provide clarity and reduce litigation over remittances. Committee members also asked about how often immigration detainers lead to deportations before trial; Rolfe said frequency depends on federal enforcement priorities and provided limited county-level counts he reviewed for Johnson County.

No committee vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing and the chair listed a set of bills the committee may work the following day.

Ending: Several committee members asked follow-up questions; proponents and the Sedgwick County DA—s office said they had negotiated language changes that moved the neutral position closer to agreement while preserving tools to challenge purported bad-faith conduct by sureties.