Jon Titter Arrested

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sorry that I'm so busy today, been workin with the insurance company etc.

Also I'm "suppose to be" working on this new thread I'm making, but anyways, I'll still work with you to get to the bottom of this.

I'm going to link this document here so we can go over some of the citations in it later:
most recent filing in case we have been disucssing about bail

Now it's a big document, so I only read about half of it so far but it's got tons of good stuff in it.

From what I can tell the appeal actually isn't based on what you and I have been arguing or what this case has been centered around, but it is instead on jurisdictional and process issues.

This is what the court actually said it's reasoning for overturning the injunction was for:

We vacated such preliminary injunction, holding that it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 because it was insufficiently specific. S ee Walker v. City of Calhoun, Ga. ( Walker II ), 682 F. App’x 721, 724– 25 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished). We declined at that time to consider “whether, substantively, [the] district court properly issued a preliminary injunction.” Id. at 724.

It's a debate over FRCP 65 which governs injunctions and restraining orders.

But what I did find was that the state already has rules that protect indigent arrestees and that the law is already clear on this issue in that state:

In summary, the Standing Bail Order envisions three forms of release depending on the type of offense charged and the financial means of the arrestee.

First , arrestees charged with State offenses within the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction will be released immediately on a secured bond if they are able and willing to deposit money bail in the amount set by the bail schedule. They can post cash bail themselves or use a commercial surety at twice the amount set by the bail schedule.

Second , arrestees charged with State offenses who do not post bail immediately must wait for a bail hearing with court-appointed counsel, to take place within 48 hours from arrest. Those who can prove they are indigent at the hearing will be released on a recognizance bond—meaning no bail amount is set, either secured or unsecured.

Third , all arrestees charged with violating City ordinances will be released o n unsecured bond, meaning that they need deposit no collateral immediately but will be assessed the bail schedule amount if they fail subsequently to appear in court.

So the first 5 pages pretty much cover our argument.

From my scanning through the rest of the document (which looks like really good reading material in my opinion which I hope to finish tomorrow sometime), it appears that they are debating a bunch of side issues that really don't apply to our debate over Excessive Bail per se. It's all about procedure and jurisdiction for the most part.

When I have more time tomorrow hopefully I can dig further into it and see what gems can be found in there.
But yeah the State already supposedly releases indigents O.R. if they cannot afford the bail listed on the schedule with the consideration that they don't pose a danger to the public.

a reply to: muzzleflash

om what I can tell the appeal actually isn't based on what you and I have been arguing or what this case has been centered around, but it is instead on jurisdictional and process issues.

Yes, the appeal was filed to challenge the district court's authority to require the City of Calhoun to do what the district court required them to do in regards to indigent persons. The appellate court ruled that the district court overstepped their authority in issuing the injuction to the city. Appellate courts hear cases based on misapplication of relevant laws, so it is very much relevant to the discussion. Part of the city's argument is that the district court was wrong to declare the bail policy unconstitutional and issue the injuction. The appellate court agreed.

Furthermore:

In applying that standard, we have implicitly held that bail is not excessive under the Eighth Amendment merely because it is unaffordable. In United States v. James, we considered a case in which the district court set a $2 million cash or surety bond requirement, which the defendants did not have the ability to pay. 674 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir. 1982). We rejected their Eighth Amendment challenge to that bail condition, holding that “[t]he basic test for excessive bail is whether the amount is higher than reasonably necessary to assure the accused’s presence at Case: 17-13139 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 18 of 75 19 trial,” and that “[a]s long as the primary reason in setting bond is to produce the defendant’s presence, the final amount, type, and other conditions of release are within the sound discretion of the releasing authority.” Id. at 891. If such standard applied to this case, Walker would have a difficult time showing that his $160 bail amount was unconstitutional

There are numerous parts of the ruling that directly apply to the conversation at hand. Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact is an entirely different thing, but the ruling is very much relevant.

Nevermind...I decided to not spend my time discussing this so deeply.

Suffice it to say that 18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial is what governs what you are discussing, and that Paragraph (c)(2) states as follows:

(c) Release on Conditions.—

(2) The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.

BUT, with that noted, Paragraphs (b)(1)(C)(xi) and (xii) precede it, noting that:

(c) Release on Conditions.—

(1) If the judicial officer determines that the release described in subsection (b) of this section will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, such judicial officer shall order the pretrial release of the person—


(B) subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, which may include the condition that the person—


(xi) execute an agreement to forfeit upon failing to appear as required, property of a sufficient unencumbered value, including money, as is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required, and shall provide the court with proof of ownership and the value of the property along with information regarding existing encumbrances as the judicial office may require;

(xii) execute a bail bond with solvent sureties; who will execute an agreement to forfeit in such amount as is reasonably necessary to assure appearance of the person as required and shall provide the court with information regarding the value of the assets and liabilities of the surety if other than an approved surety and the nature and extent of encumbrances against the surety’s property; such surety shall have a net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond;

And then, you'll have to note that, in Paragraph (c)(3), it states that:

(c) Release on Conditions.—

(3) The judicial officer may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of release.

So, basically, here's how it breaks down:

- The judge can impose a bail amount that they deem appropriate, often times done via a "Bail Schedule" (we won't get into the issue of constitutionality surrounding those)

- If the defendant doesn't have the liquid assets to pay it, the judge can amend the bail order to include the defendant's property of a value high enough to pay the ordered bail

- Very rarely will a defendant be truly incapable of paying a bail bond

- Forfeitures of Bond do happen, sometimes willingly, and the defendant's other option is to remain in detention

Contrary to your rants about the death of the constitution, it is alive and well, and if there is a relatively rare injustice when it comes to bail orders, there are ways to fight and appeal it--obviously, as you showed in your link with three rather irrelevant examples of SCOTUS rulings about bail

Most people who look into something and do not receive confirmation usually let it drop. The name being spelled differently should have been your first clue.