Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,726 chars
Experience has shown that the method of allowing a person to make
bond with a professional surety does not accomplish the purpose of bail. The
legislature in section 110-8 has determined more is needed than the mere
ability to pay bail bond forfeitures on a business basis .... Sufficient, as used
in the constitution, means sufficient to accomplish the purpose of bail, not
just the ability to pay in the event of a "skip". The State is not primarily
interested in collecting bond forfeitures, but is more concerned with granting
liberty to an accused pending trial while obtaining the greatest possible
assurance that he will appear.

I d. at 805-06 (citations omitted).
We decline to follow this line of reasoning, as it rests on a categorical rejection

of commercial sureties. The Illinois State Supreme Court's decision suggests that it

would have interpreted the phrase "bailable by sufficient sureties" differently had

the surety at issue been a personal surety. It read the provision at issue to exclude

the ability to bail by commercial bail bondsmen. Nothing in the language of the

provision allows an interpretation that picks and chooses among surety

arrangements, only that a surety be guaranteed. Certainly the order the Gendron

court reviewed unequivocally denied the defendant the ability to utilize any surety.

See Bralley, 70 Wn. App. at 653-54. It therefore negated the coequal purpose of bail

to protect the defendant from detention before conviction, which the Gendron court

itself recognized was a goal ofbail. 217 N.E.2d at 806.

Other courts have expressed a different line of reasoning in holding that

"bailable by sufficient sureties" does not guarantee a defendant the ability to bail via