Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/388116966/Cullman-County-2018-09-04-159-Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:50:05+00:00

Document:
pertain to Cullman County’s new pretrial procedures.
pretrial arrestees on monetary bail amounts that they cannot afford.” (Doc. 95, p.
injunctive relief from Sheriff Gentry. (Doc. 95, pp. 20-21, ¶¶ c-f).
Mr. Hester brings a third claim concerning the promptness of the release hearing. (Doc. 95, p.
20). Mr. Hester does not pursue early relief for that claim.
jailing arrestees unable to pay secured monetary bail.” (Doc. 102, p. 2).
related to pretrial detention and release processes, testified for Mr. Hester. (Doc.
The Court will resolve Sheriff Gentry’s motion to dismiss by separate order.
additional evidence via affidavit and stipulated to certain facts relevant to Mr.
warrants. (Doc. 143, p. 191).
property bonds. (Doc. 136, p. 192). 8 Bonding companies provide surety bonds.
does not attend a probable cause determination; only the arresting officer attends that proceeding.
jurisdictions. (Doc. 129-36, p. 3; Doc. 136, p. 276).
and a property bond can be obtained with the payment of a $35 fee. (Doc. 136, pp. 224-226).
set price for that bonding company” to post bond, and secure her release from jail.
from “real and present danger.” Ala. R. Crim. P. 7.2.
range of bail for various state criminal offenses. (Doc. 129-34; Doc. 132, p.1, ¶ 1).
conjunction with an unsecured bond. (Doc. 136, pp. 225-28).
individual. (Doc. 136, pp. 189-90).
amount and detained criminal defendants who could not afford to post bond. (Doc.
132, p. 2, ¶¶ 7-8).
hours of arrest. (Doc. 129-9, p. 3, ¶ 5).
system experiences lag time between entering and displaying data. (Doc. 136, p.
new arrests, 159 arrests were made without a warrant, all but 14 of which (i.e.
new probable cause arrest or a warrant for failure to appear during the month.
established new pretrial detention and bail policies for the Cullman County. (Doc.
Cullman County has implemented the new Standing Order.
bail for specific criminal charges. (Doc. 129-36, p. 3; Doc. 129-37; compare Doc.
your bond is going to be.” (Doc. 136, p. 206; see also Doc. 136, pp. 221-22).
when the defendant posts bond in the amount set in the warrant. (Doc. 129-36, p.
in the bail schedule. (Doc. 129-36, p. 4; Doc. 136, p. 199; Doc. 143, p. 142).
until the time she is released from jail on a secured bond. (Doc. 136, p. 206).
different from the amount listed in the bail schedule. (Doc. 129-36, pp. 3-4).
contained in the schedule.” (Doc. 129-36, pp. 3-4).
judicial determination of conditions for release takes place at an initial appearance.
39; Doc. 129-41; Doc. 143, pp. 176-77; see also Doc. 136, pp. 216, 272, 277-78).
Defendants may refuse the forms. (Doc. 139-1, p. 1).
Defendants who post bond at the time of their arrest later have to attend an initial appearance.
counsel to represent the defendant if the defendant demonstrates financial need. (Doc. 136, pp.
necessary, the staff members will help a defendant complete the forms. (Doc. 143, p. 177).
7; Doc. 136, p. 281).
one who independently gathers information for an initial appearance. (Doc. 136, p.
accurate, often because arrestees may have difficulty understanding the forms.
determination of the conditions of bond. (Doc. 136, p. 289).
The initial appearance typically is held remotely by video conference. (Doc.
defendant during an initial appearance. (Doc. 122-1, p. 5, ¶ 11; Doc. 129-36, pp.
2-8; Doc. 129-40, p. 2).
will vouch for the defendant’s reliability.
are relevant to the risk of nonappearance.
damage or lack of damage to property allegedly taken.
substantial increase in the amount of bond.
fourteen factors in Rule 7.2(a). (Doc. 129-36, pp. 5-7).
and in Form C-52(g), Release Order.” (Doc. 129-36, pp. 7-8).
amount he knows the defendant cannot afford. (Doc. 136, pp. 291-294).
typically hears the motion within a month. (Doc. 136, pp. 297-98; Doc. 143, p.
injunction in this case. (Docs. 102, 129-36). Therefore, at the hearing on Mr.
written requirements in the new Standing Order.
submitting bail request forms before Cullman County adopted the March 2018 Standing Order.
warrant; magistrates refer all bail requests to a district judge. (Doc. 143, p. 143).
PEB was arrested on a charge of domestic violence third degree, harassment.
$1,500 per Cullman County’s bail schedule. (Doc. 122-1, p. 16; Doc. 136, p. 219).
The arrestee’s initials are PEB.
Release Order provides space for a written finding with respect to secured bond.
identify the factors the judge took into “consideration” in requiring a secured bond.
p. 32). The Court disagrees.
write findings concerning a secured bond in that section of the order.
improvement over the old, still are constitutionally deficient.
Court may give meaningful relief.
clearly carries its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites.” Id.
“fundamental.” 481 U.S. at 749-50.
unattainable bond amounts that serve as de facto detention orders for the indigent.
(5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (citing Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) and Williams v.
defendants under the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 665, 103 S.Ct.
courts in the Eleventh Circuit. Id. at 1209.
amount set in the county’s bail schedule.
broader that a defendant’s rights following conviction.
either secured or unsecured.” Id. at *1-*2.
does not offend the Constitution.
proving that they are indigent according to a uniform standard of indigency.
cannot afford, creating a de facto detention order. (See Doc. 129-36, p. 37).
judge would consider the conditions for release including the bond amount. (Doc.
set bond for an indigent defendant in an amount the defendant cannot afford.
(Doc. 129-36, p. 7; Doc. 136, pp. 291-294).
Turner estimated that the number of pretrial detainees would quadruple. (Doc.
County. (Doc. 143, pp. 148-50).
pretrial detention hampers a defendant’s ability to participate in his defense.
to be unacceptable for all but the indigent.
community from dangerous criminal defendants (Doc. 143, pp. 413-14, 521). Mr.
are not necessary to serve any of these interests.
possible. Cullman County has not examined or tested an unsecured bond system.
study finds that secured bonds are more effective.” (Doc. 129-1, p. 5, ¶ 11). According to Dr.
inform our understanding of the relative effectiveness of secured and unsecured bonds.” (Doc.
to each criminal defendant one of four categories of risk for failure to appear. (Doc. 129-10, p.
statistical difference. (Doc. 129-11, p. 8).
pretrial made all scheduled court appearances. (Doc. 129-2, p. 5, ¶¶ 22, 25). Dr.
booked into a jail in Kentucky during one year. (Doc. 129-12, p. 7).
all court appearances. (Doc. 135-3, p. 4, ¶¶ 14-15).
defendant is more likely to appear in court. (See, e.g., Doc. 143, pp. 62, 69-70).
for appearing in court. (Doc. 136, pp. 225-27; Doc. 143, pp. 367-68).
defendants’ argument that secured money bail is necessary for court appearance.
individual would have just as much “skin in the game” with an unsecured bond.
10, p. 12). In addition, the study conducted by Ms. Brooker, Dr. Jones, and Mr.
bonds and criminal defendants released by judges who set many unsecured bonds.
crime while on pretrial release to pay the face value of the bond.
charged with identical crimes are treated differently based on their financial status.
their pretrial bail system, but they contend that “it’s got to come from a state level.
establish how often law enforcement officers submit bail request forms for warrant arrests.
with the record concerning Cullman County.
Cullman’s County’s secured bail procedures finds support in the current record.
scrutiny to assess the constitutionality of a bail system that discriminates on the basis of wealth.
basis analysis, it necessarily would not survive heightened scrutiny.
infringed without “constitutionally adequate procedures.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ.
such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v.
Mr. Hester’s substantive and procedural due process claims are related.
procedural due process. (Doc. 95, p. 19, ¶ 84; Doc. 108, p. 19). Specifically, Mr.
follow an evidentiary standard for detention. (Doc. 108, pp. 22-26; Doc. 131, pp.
the bail procedures at issue in the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinion in ODonnell v.
bail schedule. ODonnell v. Harris Cty., Texas, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1052, 1088 (S.D.
appearance under Cullman County’s criminal pretrial procedures. (Doc. 108, pp. 25-26).
Recently, Mr. Hester has asked for the opportunity to present additional briefing on this issue.
other reasons, the Court will delay its consideration of Mr. Hester’s right to counsel argument.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s factual findings. ODonnell, 892 F.3d at 166.
release, or to raise or lower the secured bond amount listed in the bail schedule. Id.
ability to make bail. Id. at 1086.
to post bond at the scheduled amount.
release in the vast majority of cases.
weighed relevant factors in setting bail. Id.
ODonnell, 892 F.3d at 154.
fundamental right to pretrial liberty without constitutionally adequate procedures.
ODonnell, 892 F.3d at 159.
reasoned decision by an impartial decisionmaker.” Id.
individualized, case-specific reasons for so doing is a sufficient remedy.” Id.
hour window that the district court required in its injunction. Id.
arrestees the nature and significance of the verification process.
to be bailable by sufficient sureties is at stake in the proceedings. . .
opportunity for formal review was provided. . . .
ODonnell, 892 F.3d at 164-66.
of California recently signed into law the California Money Bail Reform Act, 2018 Cal. Legis.
demands Cullman County to provide at an initial appearance.
on her own or supervised recognizance. S.B. 10, § 1320.20(e)(1).
(quoting Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268-69 (1970)).
ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING,” is vague and substantively inadequate. (Doc.
importance of the issue of the criminal defendant’s ability to pay”).
formal education, and many defendants are illiterate or have learning disabilities.
pretrial release that will satisfy the purposes of bail. (Doc. 143, pp. 92-93).
elicit testimony about the defendant’s financial condition.”) (emphasis added).
appearance, but he “tr[ies] not to ask too many questions.” (Doc. 136, pp. 288-89).
box or that judges give criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to speak.
Cain v. City of New Orleans, 281 F. Supp. 3d 624, 652 (E.D. La. 2017)).
conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S.
‘stigma.’” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 756 (quoting Addington, 441 U.S. at 425-26).
flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.’”) (quoting United States v.
confidence that detention is necessary offends a fundamental principle of justice.
appearance at trial or to protect the public.
pp. 6-7; Doc. 129-40, p. 3). This is insufficient.
favor or worked against her.
the bail amount unreasonably -- and potentially insurmountably -- difficult.
or even formal findings of fact and conclusions of law”); Holley v. Seminole Cty.
detention based on failure to pay”).
heard, absence of an evidentiary standard, and absence of factual findings -- Mr.
individuals who do not obtain release pursuant to the secured bail schedule . . .
defendants at an initial appearance.
reasoned decision by an impartial decisionmaker.’ [ODonnell, 892 F.3d] at 163.”).
family life; and it enforces idleness.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972).
time” that the defendant can never get back. Id. at 532-33.
circumstances, housing, and the wellbeing of dependent family members. (Doc.
pp. 9-11, ¶¶ 16-17; Doc. 136, pp. 64-65, 112-14).
assessed money bail are 12%  more likely to be convicted.” (Doc. 129-21, p. 4).
resulted in a criminal conviction. (Doc. 135-3, pp. 3-4, ¶¶ 11, 14-15).
average upon conviction. (Doc. 129-20, p. 4).
increase the risk of recidivism. (Doc. 129-1, pp. 11-12, ¶¶ 18-19; Doc. 136, pp.
73-74). The risk compounds as the length of detention increases. (Doc. 129-1, p.
found that secured money bail is “a significant, independent cause of . . .
period by 6-9% yearly .” (Doc. 129-21, p. 4). The study conducted by Dr.
the likelihood of recidivism at both the 12-month and 24-month points.” (Doc.
the sheriff’s department has not increased since 2009. (Doc. 136, p. 254).
Mr. Hester has not urged the defendants to detain every arrestee until an initial appearance.
just wealthy arrestees, more quickly.
prove their indigency on the basis of an objective standard.
questionnaire, updated to conform to the procedural requirements discussed above.
would assess the necessary conditions for pretrial release.
findings when requiring a bond may require very little extra time, if any.
F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1188 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
will set a telephone conference to discuss the terms of a preliminary injunction.
DONE and ORDERED this September 4, 2018.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 1320
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.