I was sitting in traffic court today and I saw something I didn’t understand. A man appeared before the judge for arraignment on a Driving with License Suspended (a criminal traffic offense).
This man had been arrested for the crime, booked for it and bonded out. Now here he is, a couple weeks later, in front of the judge to plead. I understand that if he pleads Guilty or No Contest to the charge, the judge could impose a sentence and send him to jail.
But this man pleaded Not Guilty. The judge went ahead and sent him to jail anyway and set a court date for the hearing. He did not impose a sentence, just had him RE-Arrested.
I don’t understand the process of accepting a plea of Not Guilty AND sending the guy to jail again. Just to make him have to bond out again.
And since the guy has already been booked on that charge, how can he be sent back to jail to be booked for it.
It’s not unusual to combine a bond hearing with an arraignment. So what may have happened is that the earlier bond was revoked, and the judge set a new bond, which the accused then had to meet. If he had earlier been bonded on an unsecured bond or on recognizance, the judge may have decided to up the stakes to a secured bond.
Generally, this is done pursuant to a motion by the Commonwealth (or the state); I can’t say I’ve ever seen a judge do this sua sponte (on his own motion) but it certainly could happen.
It’s also possible that there was another outstanding warrant for him- if he was on probation at the time of his arrest, for example, when his probation officer got wind of the new charges, he would have taken out a warrant. If his license was suspended for another drving offense, such as DUI, then he was likely still on probation.
The gentleman may also have been improperly released from jail originally. Some less-dangerous accused individuals are occasionally released due to pure over-crowding at the local jail. A DUI might fit in that category.
It definitely was not warrrant related or the scenario Jonathan mentions.
It sounds like it was most likely what Bricker mentions, but there was no motion from the state. The judge did this on his own.
Basically the dialogue was something like this.
Judge: So you were arrested for driving on a suspended license?
Def: Yes.
Judge: Suspended for what?
Def: DUI.
Judge: And you ran a stop sign? And you were drinking? Do you see the problem here? Your license was suspended for a DUI, you drove anyway. Further, you drove while impaired and ran a stop sign. Says here you blew a .15 on a roadside breathalyzer, which is not admissable, but it shows a pattern of behaivor. You are a danger to society, I am not letting you out on the street. Bailiff take him into custody. Your bond will be set to 5,000 dollars.
After reading your respons, and thinking about what happened again. I guess it was a bond issue. The judge wanted to raise the guy’s bond to $5000, when it was originally $200 or $500 or something like that. Also, I guess it is possible the man was ROR originally, but I dont think so.
Man, that’s harsh. So to raise someone’s bond, the person has to be taken back to jail? Also, thinking about it again makes me wonder why the arresting officer did not book him for a DUI if he blew a .15 with the portable detector.
Well, when the bond is raised, the original bond is no longer sufficient to guarantee his release – so, yes, until he can bond out again he must be taken into custody again, rebooked, the whole bit.
I do have to say that the trial judge’s comments walk a bit close to the line. The purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial, not to punish him. If he were inclined to push it, he might well appeal the new bond on the basis of abuse of discretion. But given that the new bond requires a cash outlay of only $500, it’s probably not worth it to go through that, since it’ll cost him more than $500 to get a lawyer to do the work.
Since I’m unsure of your jurisdiction, I can’t really help figure it out, but here in Illinois, a judge can, on his own motion, increase a defendant’s bond. What strikes me as potentionally problematic for the judge is that the defendant, once he is released on bond, has to receive notice and a hearing before his bond can be increased. Seems like the judge in your example skipped over those issues, but, without more information, I can’t tell you how or why.