House rejects bail bond overhaul after compromise amendment; concerns persist over automatic exoneration

House Bill 370, a package of bail bond amendments, was debated on the House floor on March 4, 2011. Representative Hughes presented the bill, which the Business and Labor Committee had reported 10‑1‑3 in favor, describing requirements for bail bond license training and continuing education, a directive that failure‑to‑appear be issued at the first applicable instance, notice requirements to sureties, clarified bond duration, and a prohibition on converting appearance bonds to performance bonds.

Floor members questioned the fiscal note and the bill’s potential effect on court revenues. Representative Cox asked about a fiscal note that mentioned possible significant general fund losses; Representative Hughes explained that judges’ previous practice of allowing defendants a short period post‑verdict to arrange affairs had sometimes resulted in continued bonds that created revenue for courts and that the bill would tighten procedures and could reduce that revenue stream.

Members also pressed the sponsor on an automatic exoneration provision. Representative McKiff asked whether bonds would be automatically exonerated if a defendant absconds; Representative Hughes said that concerns prompted negotiations and an amendment. Representative Manlove moved Amendment #2 (03/04/2011 06:23PM), which the sponsor described as a compromise worked out with the courts and bail bondsmen: it included clarifying language and extended certain case‑action timing from 365 days to 18 months.

The House adopted Amendment #2, but after summation the full bill failed on final passage, 36 yes to 37 no, and will be returned to rules for staff filing. Floor debate recorded concerns that automatic exoneration timing could hinder law enforcement’s ability to locate absconding defendants and that fiscal effects on court revenue need further study.