BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              S
                             2011-2012 Regular Session               B

                                                                     9
                                                                     8
                                                                     9
          SB 989 (Vargas)                                             
          As Introduced February 1, 2012
          Hearing date:  April 24, 2012
          Penal Code
          JM:mc

                                 EXONERATION OF BAIL: 

                        FUGITIVES FOUND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

                                           

                                       HISTORY

          Source:  Aladdin Bail Bonds

          Prior Legislation: AB 2854 (Dymally) - 2006, Vetoed
                       SB 1245 (Polanco) - Ch. 434, Stats. 1995 
                       AB 734 (Johnson) - Ch. 524, Stats. 1993

          Support: California Bail Agents Association; Golden State Bail 
          Agents Association

          Opposition:Los Angeles County District Attorney; California 
          District Attorneys Association



                                      KEY ISSUES
           
          SHOULD BAIL BE EXONERATED WHERE A FUGITIVE IS TEMPORARILY 
          DETAINED BY A BAIL AGENT IN THE PRESENCE OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT 
          OFFICIAL IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION AND THE PROSECUTOR OR UNITED 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageB

          STATES ATTORNEY FAILS TO MAKE A DECISION CONCERNING EXTRADITION 
          WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME?

                                                                (CONTINUED)



          SHOULD THE 180-DAY PERIOD FOR RETURNING A DEFENDANT TO CUSTODY 
          BEFORE BAIL IS FORFEITED BE TOLLED WHILE THE PROSECUTOR DETERMINES 
          WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTRADITE A FUGITIVE WHO HAS BEEN DETAINED BY THE 
          BAIL AGENT IN THE PRESENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A FOREIGN 
          JURISDICTION?

          SHOULD BAIL BE EXONERATED IN ANY CASE IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES 
          DEPORTS A BAILED DEFENDANT?



                                       PURPOSE

          The purposes of this bill are to 1) provide that where a 
          fugitive is detained by the bail agent in the presence of a law 
          enforcement official in a foreign jurisdiction, as confirmed by 
          an affidavit from the law enforcement officer, and the county 
          district attorney or United States Attorney does not make a 
          decision concerning extradition within a reasonable period of 
          time, bail forfeiture shall be vacated and the bond exonerated; 
          2) provide that the 180-day period for returning a fugitive to 
          custody to avoid bail forfeiture be tolled while the prosecutor 
          or United States Attorney determines whether or not to seek 
          extradition of a fugitive detained by the bail agent in a 
          foreign country, as specified; and 3) provide that a bail bond 
          forfeiture shall be vacated and the bond exonerated in any case 
          in which the United States deports the bailed defendant.

           Existing law  provides for the licensing of bail agents by the 
          Insurance Commissioner.  (Ins. Code § 1800 et seq.)

           Existing law  provides that if an on-bail defendant fails to 
          appear for any scheduled court appearance, bail is forfeited, as 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageC

          specified, unless the defendant is returned to court within 180 
          days.  (Pen. Code § 1305, subds. (a) and (b).)

           Existing law  requires the court to exonerate bail where a 
          defendant surrenders or is recaptured within 180 days of 
          forfeiture.  (Pen. Code § 1305, subd. (c).)

          Existing law  provides that a motion to extend the 180-day period 
          for returning a defendant to court before execution of bail 
          forfeiture may be heard within 30 days of the expiration of the 
          180-day period.  (Pen. Code § 1305, subd. (i).)

           Existing law  provides that a surety insurer, bail agent, surety 
          or depositor may file a motion for an order extending the 
          180-day forfeiture period.  (Pen. Code § 1305.4.)

           Existing law  provides that in the case of a temporary disability 
          of the defendant to appear within the 180-day forfeiture 
          exoneration period, the court shall order the tolling 
          (suspension of the running) of the 180-day period for a 
          reasonable time under the following circumstances:  1) The 
          defendant is either temporarily disabled by illness or insanity, 
          or the defendant has been detained by military or civil 
          authorities.  2) The defendant is unable to appear in court.  3) 
          The defendant's absence is without the "connivance" of the bail 
          agent or insurer.

           Existing law  provides that where a fugitive is in custody beyond 
          the jurisdiction of the court that ordered forfeiture of the 
          bond, the forfeiture shall be vacated and the bond exonerated 
          where the prosecuting agency, after being informed of the 
          location of the fugitive, elects not to seek extradition.  (Pen. 
          Code § 1305, subd. (f).)  

           Existing law  provides that where a bail agent temporarily 
          detains a fugitive in the presence of a law enforcement officer 
          in a foreign jurisdiction, and the law enforcement officer 
          confirms the identity of the fugitive in an affidavit, bond 
          shall be exonerated if the prosecuting agency elects not to 
          pursue extradition.  (Pen. Code § 1305, subd. (g).)  




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageD


           Existing provisions  of the United States Constitution require 
          the executive authority of one state to surrender to the 
          executive authority a person charged with a crime in the state 
          demanding surrender.  (United States Const., Art. IV § Cl. 2.)  

          Existing treaties  establish the bases and processes for 
          extradition of fugitives to and from the United States.  An 
          extradited defendant can only be tried for the offense 
          underlying extradition.  (4 Witkin, Crim. Law, Juris. and Venue, 
          §27.)
           
          Existing law  provides that the district attorney shall apply to 
          the Governor for extradition of a fugitive from a jurisdiction 
          outside California.  The application shall include the crime 
          charged and the specific location of the fugitive.  (Pen. Code § 
          1554.2, subd. (a).)

           This bill  provides that where a fugitive has been temporarily 
          detained by the bail agent in the presence of a law enforcement 
          officer in a jurisdiction outside California,<1> bond shall be 
          exonerated if the prosecuting agency or the United States 
          Attorney does not make a decision concerning extradition "within 
          a reasonable period of time."  

           This bill  provides that where a fugitive has been detained by 
          the bail agent in the presence of a law enforcement officer in a 
          foreign jurisdiction, the court shall toll the running of the 
          180-day period for vacating bail forfeiture.  The 180-period 
          shall be tolled pending the decision of the prosecutor or United 
          States Attorney concerning an extradition decision.  

           This bill  provides that if the prosecutor "proceeds with 
          extradition" the court shall toll running of the 180-day period 
          for vacating forfeiture "until? the bond is exonerated or the 
          ---------------------------
          <1> While the bill specifically refers to fugitives detained in 
          another "jurisdiction," the bill will typically only apply where 
          a fugitive is located in another country, as states in the 
          United States are constitutionally required to cooperate 
          concerning extradition.  (U.S. Const., Article IV, §2, Cl. 2.)  



                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageE

          extradition process is completed."

           This bill  provides that the court shall vacate forfeiture of a 
          bail bond in any case in which the United States has deported 
          the bailed defendant to a foreign country.  


                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
                                      ("ROCA")
          
          In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since 
          early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate 
          Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to 
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison 
          overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.  Under 
          the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for 
          "Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee 
          has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or 
          penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the 
          application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the 
          prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or 
          length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of 
          limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole 
          standards).  In addition, proposed expansions to the 
          classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011 
          Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and 
          not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA 
          because an offender's criminal record could make the offender 
          ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.  
          Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a 
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that 
          the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison 
          overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the 
          prison population.  ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding 
          is resolved.

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's 
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation. 
           On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years 
          earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageF

          District of California established a Receivership to take 
          control of the delivery of medical services to all California 
          state prisoners confined by the California Department of 
          Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").  In December of 2006, 
          plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a 
          court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the 
          federal Prison Litigation Reform Act.  On January 12, 2010, a 
          three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California 
          to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design 
          capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates 
          -- within two years.  The court stayed implementation of its 
          ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

          On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the 
          decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving 
          California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its 
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject 
          to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate 
          circumstances.  Design capacity is the number of inmates a 
          prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level 
          bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for 
          housing.  Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is 
          79,650.

          On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut 
          prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last 
          six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of 
          Assembly Bill 109.  Under the prisoner-reduction order, the 
          inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more 
          than the following:

                 167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011 
               (133,016 inmates);
                 155 percent by June 27, 2012;
                 147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
                 137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
               
           This bill  does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis 
          described above under ROCA.





                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageG

                                      COMMENTS

          1. Need for This Bill  

          According to the author:

               Current law provides a 180-day period after the 
               defendant fails to appear within which the surety can 
               recover the fugitive and exonerates the bail bond.  If 
               the agent locates a fugitive and presents adequate 
               proof that the defendant has been detained, bail may 
               be exonerated if the prosecutor elects not to 
               extradite the defendant.  If the prosecutor chooses to 
               extradite the fugitive, bail is exonerated upon the 
               fugitive's return to California custody.

               A problem arises where the prosecutor declines to make 
               a decision about extradition in a timely fashion.  
               Often, a good portion of the 180-day period is spent 
               locating the fugitive.  Once the fugitive is located 
               and the prosecutor is notified, the prosecutor 
               sometimes fails to decide about extradition with the 
               180-period.  Because bail agents runt the risk of 
               forfeiture, current law creates a disincentive to 
               track down a fugitive near the end of the 180-day 
               period, as there is no practical way for the agent to 
               exonerate the bond prior to the deadline.  As a 
               result, agents are reluctant to expend the resources 
               necessary to locate fugitives.

          2.    The Abbreviated Sum and Substance of Bail 

           Bail is a contract for release of a person from jail upon a 
          promise to appear at future court hearings.  The promise is 
          backed by a bond issued through a bail agent.  A bailed 
          defendant is said to be in the constructive custody of the bail 
          agent.  (Taylor v. Taintor (1862) (16 Wall.) 83 U.S. 366, 372.)  
          "In pre-Norman England, a bondsman ? could suffer the same 
          penalty as the fugitive.  This ? led to the allowance of rather 
          extreme measures for capture İof the fugitive]."  (Ouzts v. 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageH

          Maryland National Ins. Co. (1974) 505 F.2d 547, 550.)  These 
          measures include allowing a bail agent to arrest a fugitive in a 
          state other than where bail was issued.  (Ibid.)

          3. California Fugitives in Foreign Countries and the Seneca 
            Decision 

          A fugitive defendant who is in a foreign country or sister state 
          must be returned to court in California through extradition.  
          Under existing law (Pen. Code § 1305, subds. (f) and (g)), where 
          a bail fugitive is found in a foreign country or sister state, a 
          bail agent or insurer is entitled to have the forfeiture vacated 
          in two circumstances: 1) The prosecutor elects not to pursue 
          extradition after being informed of the location of the 
          defendant.  2) The bail agent temporarily detains the defendant 
          in the presence of a law enforcement official in the foreign 
          jurisdiction, the official confirms the identity of the 
          defendant, and the prosecutor elects not to seek extradition.  

          People v. Seneca (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1075, concerned a 
          fugitive named Dong Suk Kim for whom Seneca Insurance had issued 
          a bail bond in Orange County.  Kim fled to Korea before 
          arraignment on September 9, 2009.  The bail agent went to Korea 
          and brought Kim to the police where Kim's identity was 
          documented on January 3, 2009.  On April 2, 2009 the trial court 
          extended the 180-day period for avoiding forfeiture until 
          October 10, 2009.  On October 1, 2009, Seneca moved to vacate 
          the forfeiture because the prosecution did not follow-through on 
          a pledge to extradite Kim.  However, as the period for vacating 
          bail expired before the extradition process had begun, the court 
          ordered the bond to be forfeited.  (Id, at pp. 1078-1079.)

          The appellate court upheld the trial court, noting that the 
          governing statute does not authorize tolling of the 180-day 
          period where the defendant has fled to another country.  Bail is 
          exonerated in extradition matters only where the prosecutor 
          elects not to extradite the defendant after the defendant is 
          held in custody or temporarily detained in a foreign country.  
          In Seneca, the district attorney had not affirmatively decided 
          against extraditing Kim.  Rather, the district attorney intended 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageI

          to extradite Kim, but had not done so before the time for 
          vacating the forfeiture had expired.  Essentially, where the 
          prosecution has not made a decision whether or not to seek 
          extradition and the 180-day period before forfeiture runs, the 
          bond must be forfeited.  (Ibid.)  

          The appellate court stated that the law generally disfavors 
          forfeiture, including bail forfeiture.  The court noted that 
          requiring forfeiture of bail in cases where a defendant could 
          only be returned to court through extradition created a 
          financial disincentive for bail agents to pursue fugitives in 
          foreign countries.  The court also noted that a prosecutor could 
          effectively bring about a bail forfeiture by, in bad faith, 
          promising to "elect" to extradite a defendant and then delaying 
          efforts beyond the exoneration period.  The court found that the 
          Orange County District Attorney had not acted in bad faith and 
          that the law requiring forfeiture was clear in any event.  (Id, 
          at 1082-1083.)

          This bill would toll the running of the 180-day period before 
          forfeiture during the time that the prosecutor determines 
          whether or not to extradite the defendant.  The bill then 
          provides that if the prosecuting agency "proceeds with 
          extradition" the court shall toll the 180-day (non-forfeiture) 
          period "until such time as the bond is exonerated or the 
          extradition process is completed."  The bill also directs the 
          court to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond if the 
          prosecutor fails to make such a determination within a 
          reasonable period of time.

          4.  Issues of What it Means to "Proceed with Extradition" and What 
            Constitutes Completion of the Extradition Process       

          In cases arising under this bill, the fugitive will not actually 
          be in the custody of the foreign law enforcement agency, but 
          only temporarily detained by the bail agent.  However, in order 
          for the prosecuting agency to extradite the fugitive, the 
          fugitive must be held in custody by the foreign jurisdiction; 
          the jurisdiction must have an extradition treaty with the U. S. 
          and the foreign country must agree to actually extradite the 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageJ

          fugitive back to the United States.

          The procedures and decisions concerning extradition of a 
          fugitive from another country are largely beyond the control of 
          the county district attorney.  Treaties between the United 
          States and individual foreign countries control foreign 
          extraditions.  The Governor and the U.S. Secretary of State must 
          process an extradition request, and foreign law enforcement and 
          judicial officials must cooperate in the extradition.

          The bill does not define what it means for a prosecutor to 
          "proceed with extradition."  The bill does not define when 
          extradition is "completed."  Without certainty as to these 
          terms, courts will have difficulty applying the law.  Would the 
          process begin if and when the prosecutor requests foreign law 
          enforcement officers to arrest the fugitive?  Would it begin 
          after the fugitive is taken into custody and the formal 
          extradition processes are begun?  Is extradition completed when 
          the fugitive is returned to the United States?  Or is the 
          extradition process completed when the prosecuting agency 
          determines that the fugitive cannot be extradited?

          As the bill is now drafted, these issues would be determined 
          through extensive litigation.   Nevertheless, the following 
          scenarios illustrate that under this bill bail will not likely 
          be subject to forfeiture in any case in which the bail agent 
          detains a fugitive in the presence of a foreign law enforcement 
          official.

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Prosecutor elects not to        |Bail is exonerated              |
          |extradite                       |                                |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Prosecutor is deciding whether  |Forfeiture is stayed (tolling   |
          |or not to extradite             |of 180-day period) and bail     |
          |                                |exonerated if the prosecutor    |
          |                                |does not act within reasonable  |
          |                                |time.                           |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Prosecutor proceeds with        |Forfeiture is stayed (180-day   |




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageK

          |extradition and defendant is    |period tolled) until the        |
          |returned to court.              |extradition process is          |
          |                                |completed.  Bail exonerated     |
          |                                |when the defendant is returned  |
          |                                |to court.                       |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Prosecutor attempts to          |Forfeiture is stayed            |
          |extradite - proceeds with       |indefinitely (180-day period    |
          |extradition - but defendant is  |tolled).  Issues of forfeiture  |
          |not returned to court.          |and exoneration not resolved.   |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          DOES THIS BILL ADEQUATELY DEFINE WHEN A PROSECUTOR HAS 
          "PROCEEDİED] WITH EXTRADITION" AND WHEN THE PROCESS OF 
          EXTRADITION HAS BEEN COMPLETED?

          UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS BILL, WHERE A BAIL AGENT DETAINS A 
          FUGITIVE IN THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, 
          WOULD BAIL EVER BE FORFEITED?

          5.  Agreement on Amendments among the Author and Interested 
            Parties:  Cases where Extradition is Reasonably Probable; Good 
            Cause to not Extradite; Notice to Prosecutor; Additional 
                                                             180-Day Stays of Forfeiture upon Agreement and Others noted 
            Below  

          In 2006, AB 2854 (Dymally) presented issues similar to those in 
          this bill.  (AB 2854 was vetoed.)  In discussions on AB 2854, 
          the Los Angeles County District Attorney suggested that tolling 
          of bail forfeiture pending extradition should be allowed only 
          where extradition is a reasonable probability.  The District 
          Attorney also argued in connection with AB 2854 that bail should 
          not be exonerated where extradition is feasible, but where the 
          prosecutor has good cause not to extradite, such as where the 
          defendant is wanted for a relatively minor crime and extradition 
          would be costly and time-consuming.  Those issues remain with 
          this bill.

          The Los Angeles District Attorney has also noted about AB 2854 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageL

          and this bill that a prosecutor would not receive notice of a 
          motion for exoneration of bail in a case involving extradition 
          of a bail fugitive.  As such, the prosecutor might not have an 
          opportunity to explain to the court why extradition was not 
          pursued or to argue about whether the prosecutor's actions 
          concerning extradition were reasonable.  Such issues could be 
          decided solely on the arguments of the bail agent.  The District 
          Attorney believes that notice to the prosecutor should be 
          required in any motion concerning tolling of forfeiture or 
          exoneration of bail in a case in which the defendant must be 
          extradited back to California.

          The District Attorney has also argued that in many cases the 
          bail agent provided bail to a defendant who may have been likely 
          to flee the country.  Because extradition is costly, and because 
          the bail agent assumed the risk that a bailed defendant could 
          leave the country, the District Attorney believes that the bail 
          agent should bear the cost of extradition in order to avoid 
          forfeiture of bail, particularly where the bail should have 
          appreciated the risk of the defendant's flight.

          In recent discussions among the author's staff, the sponsor and 
          the Los Angeles District Attorney it appears that many of the 
          issues discussed in this comment have been resolved.  It is the 
          understanding of Committee staff that the following amendments 
          will be offered by the author at the hearing on this bill:

          Proposed Amendment No. 1
          
          Notice must be given to the prosecutor on every motion 
          concerning the bail of a fugitive who has fled to another 
          jurisdiction.


          Proposed Amendment No. 2
          
          In cases where a fugitive defendant has fled to another 
          jurisdiction and forfeiture or exoneration of bail depends on 
          whether the prosecutor extradites, additional 180-day stay of 
          forfeiture could be granted by the court upon a proper showing, 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageM

          including reasonable probability of extradition.

          Proposed Amendment No. 3
          
          Exoneration of bail would be allowed where the prosecutor elects 
          not to extradite a fugitive only in a case where extradition is 
          reasonably probable.  Extradition would be excused, and bail not 
          exonerated, where there is good cause not to extradite.

          Proposed Amendment No. 4
          
          Where the bail agent obtains an additional 180-day stay of 
          forfeiture in an extradition matter, the agent would bear the 
          reasonable costs of extradition.  

          Proposed Amendment No. 5
          
          The provision in the bill allowing exoneration of bail based on 
          a decision of the United States Attorney not to extradite will 
          be stricken from the bill.  

          Proposed Amendment No. 6
          
          The provision requiring exoneration of bail where the bailed 
          defendant is deported will be stricken from the bill.

          SHOULD THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BE ADOPTED?

          6.  Limiting or Prohibiting Forfeiture of Bail Issued in a 
            California Prosecution Because of Decisions of the U.S. 
            Attorney  

          The bill provides that bail issued in a California prosecution 
          shall not be forfeited if either the county prosecutor or the U. 
          S. Attorney elects not to extradite a defendant or fails to act 
          within a reasonable amount of time.  Presumably, this provision 
          would apply where a fugitive faces both state and federal 
          charges, although that is not clear in the bill.  Assuming that 
          the provision would apply in cases where a defendant faces both 
          state and federal charges, it appears that forfeiture of bail 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageN

          would be barred if the U.S. elects not to extradite, even where 
          the district attorney acted within a reasonable amount of time 
          to extradite a defendant.

          The Los Angeles County District Attorney argues that a bail 
          agent should not receive a benefit in a state prosecution "if 
          the İfederal] government for whatever reason decides not to seek 
          extradition."  Discussions between the sponsor and Committee 
          staff indicate that it appears that because decisions concerning 
          extradition of a defendant by the U.S. Attorney are out of the 
          control of the bail agent, bail should not be forfeited where 
          the U.S. Attorney does not extradite a defendant back to 
          California.

          Note: it appears that the author has agreed to strike this 
          provision from the bill.  See Comment  #5 for a discussion of 
          the proposed amendments.

          7.  Issue of what Constitutes a "Reasonable" Time for Prosecutors 
            to make Extradition Decisions before Bail is Exonerated  
























                                                                     (More)











          This bill directs a court to vacate bail forfeiture if the 
          prosecutor does not make a decision whether or not to extradite 
          a defendant within a reasonable period of time.  The bill does 
          not define what constitutes a reasonable time.  The bill does 
          not set out specific factors for the court to consider in 
          determining whether or not to exonerate bail under these 
          circumstances.  

          In general, discretion shall be exercised to advance the purpose 
          of the statute being applied and achieve justice.  ( TA \c 1 \s 
          "Bailey" \l "Bailey v. Taffe
            (1896) 29 Cal. 422"Bailey v. Taffe (1896) 29 Cal. 422, 424.)  
          The purpose of bail is to ensure that a defendant returns to 
          court.  However, a bail agent's failure to return a defendant to 
          court can be excused where the task is impossible or difficult 
          and the agent was not at fault.  As such, the determination of 
          whether or a prosecutor acted within a reasonable time in making 
          extradition decisions will likely turn on the complexity of the 
          case, the history of the defendant and the efforts and decisions 
          of the bail agent.  As bail cases are often appealed, this issue 
          will likely be determined by the appellate courts in a 
          relatively slow and costly manner.

          SHOULD THE BILL INCLUDE GUIDELINES TO DETERMINE IF A PROSECUTOR 
          HAS ACTED ON EXTRADITION WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME?

          8.  Bar on Forfeiture of Bail in a Case where the Defendant has 
          been Deported  

          This bill directs a court to vacate forfeiture of bail and 
          exonerate the bond if the bailed defendant is permanently or 
          temporarily deported to another country.  Neither the author's 
          background material nor the letter of sponsor Aladdin Bail Bonds 
          addresses this issue.  However, the California Bail Agents 
          Association, one of the supporters of the bill argues:  "This 
          bill would exonerate a bail bond when the defendant has been 
          deported by the United States to a foreign government.  This 
          process İof deportation] is beyond the control of the bail agent 
          and exoneration is the proper action that should be taken by the 




                                                                     (More)







                                                            SB 989 (Vargas)
                                                                      PageP

          court."

          The Los Angeles County District Attorney, who opposes all of the 
          provisions in the bill, explained its objection to this 
          particular provision:  "İThe bill states] that if a bail agent 
          writes a bond on a defendant who is illegally in the United 
          States, the bond should be exonerated if İthe defendant] is 
          deported.  ? By taking risk out of writing bonds on undocumented 
          aliens, this bill creates a virtual 'get out of jail free' card 
          to these accused criminals."  


          It appears that the author has agreed to strike this provision 
          from the bill.  Please see Comment  #5 for a discussion of the 
          proposed amendments.  


                                   ***************