Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Bail Agent X!
The Life of a Bail Bondsman
TOLEDO, Ohio — The profession of a bail bondsman has evolved over the last 20 years, but it’s still a fairly small one. Franklin Frazier has been a bondsman for the last 14 years and has seen his industry change.
“To keep a long story short, I went to school for nursing and was playing football and realized football wasn’t going to work out,” Frazier said. “So, I looked into being a state marshal, there was a hiring freeze at the time. I did more research and ended up stumbling upon bounty hunting.”
“It’s become part of me, it’s the adrenaline,” Frazier said. “I love being out and dealing with people, I’m always constantly dealing with people. I’m a people person and you work on your own time. I’m always on the go and I like being busy. When I’m sitting still, I feel like I’m going crazy.”
Despite the slang term ‘bounty hunting’ being popularized, the industry was only professionalized in 2001.
Mary Smith, the managing general agent for Smith Bonds & Surety in Rossford said now, the job requires specific training and licenses.
In fact, in Ohio, it’s technically against the law to use the term ‘bounty hunter’.
“It’s to not confuse people who come in and try to pretend like they are bounty hunters to go and knock on doors and it’s trying to professionalize the industry and bring it to a more respectful industry,” Smith said.
Department of Insurance investigation leads to arraignment of Orange County bail agents
Department of Insurance investigation leads to arraignment of Orange County bail agents
News: 2022 Press Release
For Release: November 21, 2022
Media Calls Only: 916-492-3566
Email Inquiries: [email protected]
Department of Insurance investigation leads to arraignment of Orange County bail agents
LOS ANGELES — Unlicensed bail agent Jimmy Mai, 35, of Irvine, and licensed bail agent Jonathan Lahmani, 42, of Orange, were each arraigned today in Los Angeles Superior Court on one felony count of negotiating bail without a license following an investigation by the California Department of Insurance.
The investigation revealed Mai, who was denied a bail license by the Department in 2017, solicited an arrestee’s family members for bail services. Selling bail bonds and other forms of insurance without a license from the Department of Insurance is illegal under California law. Although the arrestee’s mother informed Mai that she had secured bail services elsewhere, a Bail Bonds Direct agent still posted the bond.
Mai attempted to coerce the arrestee to pay for the unauthorized bond while Lahmani attempted to get signatures on the already posted bond to legitimize the transaction. When the arrestee refused to do so, since his mother had already paid a different bail agency, Bail Bonds Direct, Mai, and Lahmani attempted to have the arrestee arrested for a violation of his bail conditions.
In March 2022, the Department took legal action against Bail Bonds Direct, its owners Adi Roth and Jennifer Roth, and bail agent Jonathan Lahmani, for bail regulatory violations.
The Department began its investigation after receiving a complaint about Bail Bonds Direct. The Department urges any consumer considering a bail bond or other type of insurance to check the license status of the seller at our website, and contact the Department’s hotline at (800) 927-4357 if you have any concerns.
Mai and Lahmani have each posted bail of $30,000 and are scheduled to return to court on February 9, 2023. This case is being prosecuted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Long Beach Branch.
# # #
Led by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, the California Department of Insurance is the consumer protection agency for the nation’s largest insurance marketplace and safeguards all of the state’s consumers by fairly regulating the insurance industry. Under the Commissioner’s direction, the Department uses its authority to protect Californians from insurance rates that are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, oversee insurer solvency to pay claims, set standards for agents and broker licensing, perform market conduct reviews of insurance companies, resolve consumer complaints, and investigate and prosecute insurance fraud. Consumers are urged to call 1-800-927-4357 with any questions or contact us at www.insurance.ca.gov via webform or online chat. Non-media inquiries should be directed to the Consumer Hotline at 800-927-4357. Teletypewriter (TTY), please dial 800-482-4833.
What happens after someone gets arrested?
So you or someone you love just got arrested
Each state and jurisdiction may vary, but typically this is how it goes down…
After someone gets arrested, a suspect will make their first appearance at a preliminary hearing, which typically occurs the next business day following their arrest, not counting weekends and holidays.
At a preliminary hearing, a judge decides if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime based on evidence provided by law enforcement or the prosecuting attorney. Probable cause must be determined no later than 48 hours following a person’s arrest.
If a judge finds probable cause, the next step is deciding if the suspect should be held in detention, released on their recognizance, or released with conditions if personal recognizance is not enough to guarantee that a suspect will show up for their next court date.
If the court finds there is a “substantial danger” the accused will commit a violent crime, try to intimidate witnesses, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice while out on bail, a judge can choose to order the defendant remain in detention. The court can consider the accused’s criminal history, the nature of the charges, the accused’s record of threats to victims or witnesses, the accused’s record of using deadly weapons or firearms and the accused’s history of committing crimes while released pre-trial when making that decision.
Cain Velasquez granted $1 million bail by Santa Clara County judge in attempted murder case
A Santa Clara County (Calif.) judge granted the former UFC heavyweight champion bail Tuesday after a pre-trial hearing that stretched nearly 13 hours over the course of two days.
“This incident is extremely serious but appears to be isolated behavior by Mr. Velasquez,” Judge Arthur Bocanegra said. “There is also a viable heat of passion defense.”
Terms of Velasquez’s release include a $1 million bail, GPS monitoring and compliance to an extended set of terms – no weapons, TBI/CTE outpatient treatment, counseling, search and seizure conditions, and a protective order to stay a minimum of 300 yards from alleged victims Harry Goularte, Patricia Goularte, and Paul Bender
“Mr. Velasquez, I would not release you if I was not convinced that upon a release at this time, eight months later, that you would be a danger to Harry Goularte primarily, Patricia Goularte or Paul Bender,” Bocanegra said. “If you are as devoted a husband and father, I’m confident and have to believe you will not jeopardize anything that would take you away from your son, your daughter, your family. I hope you don’t prove me wrong.”
Velasquez replied, “I won’t, your honor.”
District Attorney’s Office prosecutor Aaron French long argued Velasquez’s actions reckless and cited the time of day, the traffic frequency, and the proximity to a charter school. French also indicated he thought there was nothing preventing Velasquez from “finishing the job.”
Velasquez, 40, has been jailed for over eight months while he faces a handful of charges, including attempted murder, for allegedly shooting at a car carrying Goularte, a man accused of molesting Velasquez’s 4-year-old son and striking Goularte’s stepfather in the arm with a bullet.
His defense attorney, Mark Geragos, had previously requested bail three times but was shut down on each attempt. A writ petition submitted to a California appellate court also was denied.
The pre-trial hearing was initially set with the purpose of a judicial review that there was probable cause for the charges to go to trial. Five police officers were called as witnesses Monday by the DA and painted a picture of their perspectives of the alleged incident.
The officers, who had interactions with Velasquez, confirmed his cooperation during the process, including pulling over his vehicle and placing himself on the ground prior to lights and sirens, admission of the possession of a firearm, and his submission into potential insight to his motive. These details apparently resonated with Judge Bocanegra.
While the prosecution largely led the events of the hearing Monday, Velasquez and Geragos were given opportunity to present their own exhibits and motions Tuesday. While Geragos declined to call a witness, he made two motions. One was to dismiss a charge of premeditated attempted murder and one for bail.
The dismissal motion was thrown out, but bail was ultimately approved.
How many bail agents are in the state of California?
Every wonder how many licensed bail agents are in the state of California?
Probably not as many as you would think!
Currently, there are approximately 2,300 bail agents and organizations in California licensed to cover the entire state of California! Professional Bail Agents go through exhaustive training, testing and a very thourogh background examination before they can be issued a state license. Futhremore, they have to maintain a clean background and do continuing education throughout the year.
Bail Agents are a very competitive family that are essential to our system of law.
Be a bail X-pert! How Courts Work
In California, the courts are divided into 2 systems: federal and state. There is also the system of tribal courts, which are part of the Native American reservation system. And there is a system of administrative hearings to help resolve disputes when a local or state government agency takes an action against an individual or business. This section explains the different types of courts in California and gives you an overview of how court cases work.
State Courts in California
California has 2 types of state courts, trial courts (also called “superior courts”) and appellate courts, made up of the Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. The California Constitution also establishes the Judicial Council, which is the governing body of the California courts and is chaired by the California Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Trial Courts
Trial courts are also called “superior courts.” In the trial or superior court, a judge, and sometimes a jury, hears testimony and evidence and decides a case by applying the law to the facts of the case.
Superior courts handle:
- All civil cases (family law, probate, juvenile, and other civil cases);
- All criminal cases (felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, like traffic tickets);
- Small claims cases and appeals of small claims cases;
- Appeals of civil cases involving $25,000 or less; and
- Appeals of infraction (like traffic) and misdemeanor cases.
There are 58 superior courts, 1 in each county. Some counties may have several courthouses in different cities, but they are all part of the same superior court for that county.
Superior court judges are elected by voters of the county on a non-partisan ballot at a general election. (Vacancies are filled by appointment of the Governor.) The term of office for a trial judge in California is 6 years. A superior court judge must have been an attorney admitted to practice law in California or have served as a judge of a court of record in this state for at least 10 years immediately preceding election or appointment. Click to find a particular California trial court judge.
54 Trial Court CEOs Issue News Release: There is a Court Reporter Crisis in California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 2, 2022
SUPERIOR COURTS OF CALIFORNIA
THERE IS A COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE CRISIS
IN CALIFORNIA
Each day across California, tens of thousands of court hearings are held. Lawyers
argue, witnesses testify, litigants tell their stories and judges make decisions. What
many people do not appreciate is the crucial role played by a court reporter:
creating and preserving a verbatim record of those exchanges. As a chronic
shortage of court reporters reaches crisis levels, the statutory framework for court
reporting must adjust to the new realities of the reporting profession.
THE PROBLEM: There is a court reporter shortage in California – and across
the nation – that has been long developing.
• In 2005, the Judicial Council warned that, “since the early 1990’s, California’s
courts have experienced a steady decline in the number of available qualified
shorthand reporters. […] Additionally, the reduction of court reporting
schools and curriculums in California over recent years complicates the
courts’ ability to attract sufficient numbers of well-trained reporters. [2005,
Reporting of the Record Task Force, Final Report, p. 6.]
• Nationally, a 2013 study by the National Court Reporters Association
projected that “Decreased enrollment and graduation rates for court
reporters, combined with significant retirement rates, will create by 2018 a
critical shortfall projected to represent nearly 5,500 court reporting
positions.” [Ducker Worldwide, 2013-2014: Court Reporting Industry Outlook
Report, Executive Summary, p. 5.]
• In 2017, the Chief Justice’s Futures Commission Final Report warned,
“National data show the number of skilled court reporters is decreasing.
Certified court reporting schools have experienced smaller enrollment and
graduation rates, which are declining by an annual average of 7.3
percent[…]” [Report to the Chief Justice: Commission on the Future of
California’s Court System, p. 240.]
• In 2018, the Judicial Council wrote to the Legislature that, “the state would
[…] have a gap of approximately 2,750 court reporters by 2023 if forecasted
COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE CRISIS
November 2, 2022
Page 2 of 6
demand remains constant.” [March 29, 2018, letter from the Judicial Council
to Hon. Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, Chair Assembly Appropriations Committee,
re: Assembly Bill 2354.]
Today in California, only nine Certified Shorthand Reporter programs remain. In
2021, only 175 examinees took the licensing exam – and only 36 passed.
The result is a crisis in court reporter availability that has been developing for
years.
THE SHORTAGE OF COURT REPORTERS IMPACTS LITIGANTS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA:
In accordance with Penal Code § 190.9 and § 869, Code of Civil Procedure § 269
and Welfare and Institution Code § 347 and § 677, California courts must provide
court reporters in felony criminal and dependency and delinquency juvenile
courtrooms. Court reporters are not statutorily required to be provided by the
courts in civil, family law, probate, misdemeanor criminal and traffic courtrooms.
And yet, many California courts do not have enough court reporters to cover
mandated criminal felony matters – let alone the wide range of areas in which
litigants need a record of court proceedings.
Over 50% of the California courts have reported that they are unable to routinely
cover non-mandated case types including civil, family law and probate.
FUNDING IS NOT THE SOLUTION: There is no one to hire.
The Legislature provides $30 million annually to the California courts to hire
additional court reporters, with a focus on family law and civil courtrooms.
However, because of the decline in court reporters, the crisis continues.
COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE CRISIS
November 2, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Today 71 percent of the state’s 58 trial courts are actively recruiting for court
reporters: Alameda; Butte; Contra Costa; Del Norte; El Dorado; Fresno; Humboldt;
Imperial; Kern; Lake; Los Angeles; Madera; Marin; Merced; Monterey; Nevada;
Orange; Placer; Riverside; Sacramento; San Benito; San Bernardino; San Diego;
San Francisco, San Joaquin; San Luis Obispo; San Mateo; Santa Barbara; Santa
Clara; Santa Cruz; Shasta; Siskiyou; Solano; Sonoma; Stanislaus; Tehama; Tulare;
Tuolumne; Ventura; Yolo; and Yuba.
THE CURRENT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK INHIBITS CREATIVE RESPONSES
TO THE SHORTAGE OF COURT REPORTERS:
With the exception of limited civil, misdemeanor and infraction cases, Government
Code § 69957 prohibits the courts from providing electronic recording in civil, family
law and probate courtrooms.
Government Code § 69959 and Code of Civil Procedure § 367.75(d)(2)(A) mandate
court reporters to be present in the courtrooms – rather than taking advantage of
emerging technologies that would allow the court to provide this service remotely
to multiple courtrooms throughout the county, providing more services with
existing resources while making the profession more attractive to young, potential
court reporters.
Government Code § 69942 requires all court reporters who work in a court to be
certified in California which restricts courts from hiring out-of-state independent
firms to provide this service.
CONCLUSION: More funding is not the solution.
We stand with our court reporters in recognizing and appreciating their value and
service to the California judicial branch but we must acknowledge that we are
facing a California – and national – court reporter shortage.
This shortage will not be solved by increased funding. Without changes to the
current statutory framework for court reporting, all courts will face the inevitable
day, already seen by a few California courts, of not having enough court reporters
to cover the mandated felony criminal and juvenile dependency and delinquency
cases.
Every litigant in California should have access to the record. Ideally, this would be
provided by a court reporter but when none are available, other options need to be
available to the courts. We are ready, able and willing to work with all stakeholders
on finding ways to ensure that all litigants who need a record have access to one.
COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE CRISIS
November 2, 2022
Page 4 of 6
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
• U.S. Legal Support, Understanding the National Court Reporter Shortage and
What it Means for Your Firm, [https://www.uslegalsupport.com/court-
reporting/understanding-the-national-court-reporter-shortage-and-what-it-
means-for-your-firm/]
• Ducker Worldwide, Court Reporting Industry Outlook Report (2013 – 2014)
[https://www.ncra.org/docs/default-
source/uploadedfiles/education/schools/2013-14_ncra_-industry_outlook-
(ducker)8ef018c4b8ea486e9f8638864df79109.pdf?sfvrsn=c7a531e2_0]
• Commission on the Future of California’s Court System, Report to the Chief
Justice, 2017, [https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/futures-commission-
final-report.pdf]
• California Trial Court Consortium, The Causes, Consequences, and Outlook of
the Court Reporter Shortage in California and Beyond, 2022,
[https://www.siskiyou.courts.ca.gov/system/files?file=court-reporter-
shortage-1-2022.pdf]
the Court’s website):
###
CEO Chad Finke
Alameda County Superior Court
CEO Jake Chatters
Placer County Superior Court
CEO Ann Greth
Alpine County Superior Court
CEO W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr.
Riverside County Superior Court
CEO Sharif Elmallah
Butte County Superior Court
CEO Lee Seale
Sacramento County Superior Court
CEO Erika F. Valencia
Colusa County Superior Court
CEO Tarry Singh
San Benito County Superior Court
CEO Kate Bieker
Contra Costa County Superior Court
Interim CEO Carmen Trutanich
San Bernardino County Superior Court
CEO Esperanza Esparza
Del Norte County Superior Court
CEO Michael M. Roddy
San Diego County Superior Court
CEO Michael L. Elliott
Fresno County Superior Court
Interim CEO Mark Culkins
San Francisco County Superior Court
CEO Diana Baca
Glenn County Superior Court
CEO Brandon E. Riley
San Joaquin County Superior Court
COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE CRISIS
November 2, 2022
Page 5 of 6
CEO Kim M. Bartleson
Humboldt County Superior Court
CEO Michael Powell
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court
CEO Maria Rhinehart
Imperial County Superior Court
CEO Neal Taniguchi
San Mateo County Superior Court
CEO Pam Foster
Inyo County Superior Court
CEO Darrel Parker
Santa Barbara County Superior Court
CEO Tamarah Harber-Pickens
Kern County Superior Court
CEO Rebecca Fleming
Santa Clara County Superior Court
CEO Nocona Soboleski
Kings County Superior Court
CEO Alex Calvo
Santa Cruz County Superior Court
CEO Krista LeVier
Lake County Superior Court
CEO Melissa Fowler-Bradley
Shasta County Superior Court
CEO Teresa Stalter
Lassen County Superior Court
CEO Ann Mendez
Sierra County Superior Court
CEO Sherri R. Carter
Los Angeles County Superior Court
CEO Reneé McCanna Crane
Siskiyou County Superior Court
CEO Adrienne Calip
Madera County Superior Court
CEO Brian K. Taylor
Solano County Superior Court
CEO James Kim
Marin County Superior Court
CEO Robert M. Oliver
Sonoma County Superior Court
CEO Desiré Leard
Mariposa County Superior Court
CEO Hugh K. Swift
Stanislaus County Superior Court
CEO Kim Turner
Mendocino County Superior Court
CEO Stephanie M. Hansel
Sutter County Superior Court
CEO Amanda Toste
Merced County Superior Court
CEO Kevin Harrigan
Tehama County Superior Court
CEO Brandy Malcolm
Modoc County Superior Court
CEO Staci Holliday
Trinity County Superior Court
CEO Lester Perpall
Mono County Superior Court
CEO Stephanie Cameron
Tulare County Superior Court
CEO Chris Ruhl
Monterey County Superior Court
CEO Hector Gonzalez, Jr.
Tuolumne County Superior Court
COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE CRISIS
November 2, 2022
Page 6 of 6
CEO Bob Fleshman
Napa County Superior Court
CEO Brenda L. McCormick
Ventura County Superior Court
CEO Jason B. Galkin
Nevada County Superior Court
CEO Shawn Landry
Yolo County Superior Court
CEO David H. Yamasaki
Orange County Superior Court
CEO Heather Pugh
Yuba County Superior Court
What are some common misdemeanor charges?
Here is a small list of examples of the laws in California that define misdemeanor charges.
Driving on a Suspended License – VC 14601.1(a)
DUI – VC 23152(a)
Public Drunkenness – 647(f)
Domestic Violence – PC 273.5
Reckless Driving – VC 23103 (b)
Disorderly Conduct – PC 415
Petty Theft – PC 484 or PC 488
Shoplifting – PC 459.5
Soliciting Prostitution – PC 647(b)
Probation Violations – PC 273.5
You can find a full explanation of the charges and their designation as either a felony or a misdemeanor, in the California Penal Code.
Is a bail enforcement agent like we see on TV and movies?
Often times, yes they are. Bail enforcement agents work closely with bail bond agents to make sure that defendants appear in court for their scheduled hearings. When a bonded person skips bail, bail enforcement agents are responsible for tracking the individual down and returning them to custody. Many well trained bail agents work themselves to bring a fugitive back into custody to ensure they make their scheduled court date. Often it can be something as simple as a phone call to the right family member, and sometimes it has to go beyond a phone call.
Often times it is not near as dramatic as portrayed on film.
Professionalism and staying within the parameters set fourth by the law are important to licensed bail agents. Dramatics are typically avoided when there is a wiser option available.