Podcasts & RSS Feeds
Most Active Stories
- Listen: Can You Pick Out The Northwest Accent? (And Yes, We Have One!)
- Former Boeing Executive Alan Mulally’s Advice On Labor: 'Working Together Works’
- Tips On Staying Healthy While You Travel
- Mass: Expect Intensifying Rains With Global Warming
- Just Back From Spain, Nancy Leson Offers A Few Pointers On Paella
News & Music Contributors
Washington Supreme Court
Thu July 31, 2014
Jailed In Washington? You Have A Right To A Bail Bondsman
You’ve heard of your Miranda rights, but did you know that most state constitutions also give you a right to a bail bondsman?
In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that criminal defendants can go to a third-party, like a bondsman, who will put up bail for a fee.
Technically, you don't actually have a right to a bail bondsman. But if a judge sets bail, you do have a right to something called “sufficient sureties.” That’s legal speak for a third party who will pony up the cash to get you sprung.
This Washington ruling stems from a case where a judge told a man if he wanted to bail out of jail, he had to post 10 percent of the bond directly with the court, meaning he wasn't given an option to go to a bail bondsman.
Attorney Jeff Coopersmith with Davis Wright Tremaine took the case to the Washington Supreme Court.
“It’s not going to mean that all defendants are released,” he said. “But it’s going to at least give the defendant this option to negotiate a fee with a commercial bail bonding company.”
Coopersmith says for poor defendants in particular, that could mean the difference between awaiting trial at home instead of in jail.
On the flip side are some prosecutors who’ve argued for what they call “truth in bail.” This concept got some traction after Arkansas parolee Maurice Clemmons bailed out of jail in 2009, then shot and killed four Lakewood police officers.
Not all criminal defendants in Washington are eligible for bail. This Supreme Court ruling only affects cases where the judge sets bail.