(860) 247-2245
(800) 570-5544
Specializing In Quick Release For All
Proposed Amendment HJ 171 Denies Pretrial Release in Connecticut
(860) 247-2245
Open 24/7 Financing Available
Proposed House Resolution to Amend Connecticut’s Constitution (HJ171) Eliminates the Right to Bail – 2024 Legislative Session
At the start of the 2024 legislative session, advocates again proposed a constitutional amendment in efforts to push for bail reform in Connecticut. Subsequently, some Judiciary Committee members proposed House Resolution 171. The proposed language seeks to amend the state constitution to revise conditions related to bail offering and pretrial. It’s an attempt to eliminate your right to bail during pretrial.
To those unfamiliar with surety bail bonds services offered by licensed bondsmen, the movement by lawmakers aims to eliminate the right to bail through a direct amendment to the Connecticut Constitution.
This year Steven Stafstrom, Chair of the Judiciary Committee and House District 129 of certain Bridgeport areas, has openly expressed his desire to amend the constitution to eliminate surety bail services. CT Mirror shared “Bail reform in Connecticut is coming,” Stafstrom said. “It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.”
In 2023, the HJ261 proposed resolution to amend the Constitution made it out of the Judiciary by favorable votes 25 to 12. However, the proposed amendment never made it to the floor of the Connecticut House of Representatives for voting due to lack of support.
(HJ 171) Resolution Proposing An Amendment To The State Constitution To Revise Requirements Relating To The Offering Of Bail Or Pretrial Release To Persons Accused Of A Crime
House Resolution No. 171 (HJ171) proposes to amend the constitution to revise requirements for the offering of bail or pretrial release. Currently, Connecticut laws protect citizens’ right to bail. As part of the constitutional right to bail, arrested persons accused of a crime have a few alternatives to get out of jail. The stated main purpose of this amendment is to eliminate the financial cost that lawmakers claim burdens people of low income. The amendment would eliminate the right to bail by law.
The right to bail equalizes people’s ability to get out of jail. After an arrest, there are 3 common paths to freedom. The promise to appear (non-financial option), the surety bail (Pay a portion of the bond to the bail bonds agency), and the cash percentage option (Pay the full percentage option upfront in cash).
Proposed Amendment HJ 171 intends to deny pretrial release to the accused under certain conditions and release others without posting any financial means or accountability. Lawmakers are pushing this change primarily because they believe that judges are prohibited from detaining dangerous defendants as defendants have the right to reasonable bail in the current Connecticut constitution.
Contrary to popular belief, judges have the right to set unattainable bail for those considered a risk to public safety. Here is a list of defendants who made headlines and are currently behind bars with bail so high they cannot afford to pay it. Judges consider many factors when setting bail. When an accused is deemed a risk to public safety, judges can exercise their authority by setting high bail for these dangerous defendants. For wealthy citizens considered high risk, their bail often is not less than a couple of million. The highly publicized case of Michelle Troconis’s bond is an example. The judge set her bail at 6 million, and she remains in custody at the Niantic York Correctional Institution.
If HJ 171 Amendment Passes, Connecticut Residents Could End Up in Jail Without The Right To Post Bail.
Eliminating the right to bail in Connecticut is a serious matter that should not be taken lightly. Can you imagine being stuck in jail without the ability to post bail? How about staying locked up for months or years for something you have not been found guilty of? The pretrial process can last many months and sometimes years.
The proposal as presented lacks language and details about who will end up stuck in jail and who will be released. Your freedom will depend upon the police that arrested you or the judge. It’s a very concerning topic because of what is at stake.
Eliminating the right to bail doesn’t only affect people who are familiar with the criminal system, it affects everyone. People who have never been charged with a crime can sometimes end up getting arrested, as arrests happen every day. People make mistakes and life does happen. When someone is arrested, the services of a bail bonds agency can help immediately.
Licensed bail bondsmen offer affordable fees and payment plans while offering accountability to the court system. When defendants released on surety bail miss a date, the bail bond agency is responsible for bringing them back to court at no expense to the taxpayer. It saves police resources in every Connecticut town.
CT Bail Bonds services are not only there to post bail after an arrest. They offer essential resources for residents who are not familiar with the courts, prisons, and bail services. 3-D Bail Bonds clients feel speaking to the bail bondsman is easier than speaking to the police.
On the other side, releasing persons accused of a crime using a zero-accountability system can put the safety of Connecticut residents at high risk. Surety bail offers accountability, which turns into defendants appearing in court at a higher rate compared to those released on non-financial terms.
As a result, people released with a bail bondsman understand the agreement with the agency and the courts. The simple condition to remain free throughout the trial is to attend court. Defendants feel they must comply with the bondsman, which makes the system work. Another requirement by bondsmen is the involvement of family prior to releasing someone from jail. There is a thorough process behind getting someone out of jail.
Releasing People Accused of A Crime Without A System To Hold Them Accountable Can Lead To Serious Consequences.
Persons accused of a crime freed on promises to appear have the choice to return to court or abscond from justice. Without a system in place to ensure their return to court, failure to appear will happen. The highest rate of failure to appear (missing court) comes from people released on a promise to appear. See Drew Bloom’s interview, which mentions the thousands of active re-arrest warrants pending in the judicial branch.
Connecticut residents must know that when someone is released on a promise to appear, there is no warrant squad looking for these defendants to bring them back to court. The law is in place to ensure someone arrested goes through a speedy trial, but when the accused does not show up in court, the state cannot prosecute anyone. This leaves thousands of victims without their day in court regularly.
Accountability to the courts is the entire purpose of surety bail. Bail cannot be punitive, but it must ensure the court the return of persons accused of a crime during pretrial.
Hearing Testimony About HJ171 from March 13, 2024, presented to the Judiciary Committee at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford CT
The Division of Criminal Justice opposes H.J. No. 171 and respectfully recommends no action on the resolution.
The proposed resolution represents an historic departure from Connecticut’s current system of constitutionally guaranteed reasonable bail. While such a departure may ultimately prove beneficial, doing so now, without further careful study and input from various stakeholders, is premature because there currently is no consensus on the most suitable structure for replacing the existing bail system. Read full testimony
Testimony of Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, Legal Counsel, Director Office of Chief Public Defender Raised Bill No. H.J.R. 171 – Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the State Constitution to Revise Requirements Relating to The Offering of Bail or Pretrial Release to Persons Accused of a Crime
As in prior testimony, the Office of Chief Public Defender (OCPD) opposes H.J.R. 171…
In 2022, the Sentencing Commission released its Report on Pretrial Justice, Toward a Fair and Just System. A recent trip to New Jersey by members of the Sentencing Commission to view the criminal process on this issue is still being discussed. Any changes as contemplated by this Resolution will impact upon this agency’s indigent clients who are presumed innocent. Details of any bail process contemplated must first be recommended, reviewed, considered, and ultimately agreed upon by those stakeholders in the criminal justice system.
Passing an amendment to the Constitution prior to establishing the process would be premature without the specific details worked out before hand to avoid substantial and detrimental impact upon this agency’s indigent clients and the most vulnerable people in this state, including people of color. This office is concerned as it believes that passage of this Resolution and contemplated constitutional amendment will result in increased detention of our clients and pressure clients to plead guilty so that they may be released from incarceration. Pretrial detention results in substantial collateral consequences, which include loss of employment, housing, children and family support. Read full testimony
The Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association opposes H.J. Resolution 171 Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the State Constitution to Revise Requirements Relating to The Offering of Bail or Pretrial Release to Persons Accused of a Crime, for three main reasons as outlined below.
(3) Measures already exist in the judicial system to allow judges to set conditions of pretrial release; this Resolution allows the legislature to further limit judicial discretion. Presently, at criminal arraignments judges have discretion to set conditions of pretrial release as they see fit, given the accusations. The types of pretrial release conditions most commonly seen include GPS monitoring, weekly check-ins with a probation officer, surrendering a passport, and even more extreme measures such as house arrest. These are all conditions that judges have the discretion in setting.
The most troubling part of this proposed Resolution states in relevant part that “[t]he general assembly may provide by law procedures, terms and conditions applicable to pretrial release and the denial thereof.” This effectively allows the legislature to continue to dilute judicial discretion in the future.
If this Resolution is passed, then the legislature would need to outline applicable conditions of pretrial release and the denial of them.
This type of legislation would undermine the principle of separation of powers found in the Second Article of the Connecticut Constitution and unduly limit judicial discretion in an area of legal practice that currently is effectively streamlined. Read full testimony
Andrew Bloom, President-Fugitive Recovery Agency-Inc.-Opposes House Resolution 171, a Constitutional Amendment Eliminating People’s Right to Bail.
“Bail Bonds is the only form of pretrial release that monitors and enforces appearance for non-complying individuals released while their court case is pending. It is the only form of pretrial release that is held accountable and literally guarantees court appearances, giving victims their day in court.”
Daniel, Toner President-3-D Bail Bonds-Inc-Opposes HJ 171 Constitutional Amendment That Eliminates Connecticut Residents Right to Bail
The report lists numerous advantages of our system which surpasses other states it reviewed.
Connecticut’s pretrial process has more favorable outcomes than almost all other states in the country. We have studied and negotiated in good faith and reformed our process numerous times since 2007.
The report as well as the proposed amendment neglects to indicate how and who pays when individuals released on other forms abscond. Bail Agents return fugitives to give victims the ability to be heard, feel safe and get their “day in court”. In order to do this, we have the authority to, and do cross town, city, state and international lines to return absconding fugitives. One of the best advantages bail has on other forms of release is family involvement. Read full testimony
