Court Opinion

ID: 9474041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:46:20.272997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:52.334306
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal in which appellant asks us to interpret a subsection of a recently passed statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c),1 and the relationship of Administrative Order 85-19 issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to that statute. Administrative Order 85-19, entitled POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING PROPERTY BONDS TO SECURE APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANTS, was issued on July 19, 1985.2 That *1521Order set forth the policy statement that “the practice of routinely securing bonds in criminal cases by real or chattel mortgages is to cease immediately.” The court did not completely rule out “the possibility of such a bond condition,” noting that “under very extraordinary circumstances such a condition might be appropriate.”
We find it unnecessary to decide whether the challenged Administrative Order is valid or invalid. The Magistrate held a lengthy hearing, considered all of the factors involved and determined that a bond or security in the amount of $1,000,-000 was necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance in court. A review of the material presented reflects that the defendant has not tendered interests in collateral anywhere near such a sum. Many of the alleged values are extremely questionable on their face; but accepting the allegations of value, the collateral is woefully deficient. Considering the evidence presented, including the amount of cocaine seized and the circumstances surrounding the seizure, we find the $1,000,000 figure is reasonable. Consequently, we pretermit reaching the issue of the validity of the district court’s Administrative Order.
AFFIRMED.
APPENDIX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 85-19
IN RE: POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING PROPERTY BONDS TO SECURE APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANTS
This Court is presently processing almost 3,000 defendants in criminal cases each year. Many of these persons are released on bonds secured by mortgages on real property. Some have been released upon signing bonds secured by chattel mortgages. These bonds have generated voluminous paperwork and record keeping far beyond the capacity of our already overburdened Clerk’s staff. The Clerk has had to request additional personnel solely to process these bonds. Moreover, despite all efforts to ensure that proper collateral is posted, efforts to foreclose on these mortgages have been largely futile because of errors, discrepancies, and documentary defects. The problem is particularly egregious in a district such as this, where there are presently approximately 2,000 outstanding fugitive warrants.
The recent effort to make legally binding the local practice, by use of the form captioned “Promissory Agreement and Indenture Executed in Support of the Appearance Bond of Defendant” has not helped to resolve the procedural difficulties created by such bonds.
In short, the practice of releasing defendants on bonds secured by real or personal property has proved only to hinder and not expedite the administration of justice in this district.
The Court is mindful that the Bail Act provides at 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)(E) that the forfeiture of collateral is one condition which may lawfully be imposed in connection with release of a defendant upon bond. It is solely for this reason that the Court has not foreclosed the possibility of such a bond condition by local rule. It may be that under very extraordinary circumstances such a condition might be appropriate.
It is the policy of this Court, however, that the practice of routinely securing bonds in criminal cases by real or chattel mortgages is to cease immediately. Many acceptable alternative bond conditions are provided in the statute. Moreover, persons with genuine and substantial real property assets may obtain a private mortgage and use the proceeds to post either.a corporate surety or cash bond.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at the United States Courthouse, Federal Courthouse Square, Miami, Florida, this 19th day of July, 1985.
FOR THE COURT:
JAMES LAWRENCE KING CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

. (c) Release on conditions. — If the judicial officer determines that the release described in subsection (b) will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, he shall order the pretrial release of the person—
******
(2) subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that he 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—
******
(K) execute an agreement to forfeit upon failing to appear as required, such designated property, including money, as is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required, and post with the court such indicia of ownership of the property or such percentage of the money as the judicial officer may specify;
******
The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person____

. The complete text of the order is attached as an appendix.