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 ten-percent of the bond directly with the court. No 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 said for poor defendants especially that could mean the difference between awaiting trial at home versus 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 and 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.