Michael J. Whitlock, Executive Vice President – Bail Division
After sitting idle in the Assembly Public Safety Committee for more than a year, SB 562, the California bail premium refund bill, was heard by the committee this week. Senator Angelique Ashby is the author of the proposed legislation.
The original version of SB 562 required a compensated surety (bail bond company) to refund up to 80% of the premium whenever bond conditions were modified, charges were dismissed, or a court determined that one party had benefited at another party’s expense. An amended version of SB 562 was approved by the Public Safety Committee and significantly narrows the circumstances under which a defendant may receive a refund of bail premium.
Under the amended bill, a refund may be ordered only when:
- Charges are dismissed within 21 days of arraignment;
- Charges are not filed within 21 days after the bond is posted and the defendant has not missed any required court appearances; and
- The bill establishes a defined retention amount for the surety.
The second provision is particularly noteworthy because it implicitly recognizes that a surety assumes financial risk from the moment a defendant is released from custody. A failure to appear can occur one day after release or one year later, but the risk begins immediately upon posting the bond. By conditioning a refund on the defendant having complied with all mandatory court appearances, the bill acknowledges that the surety has provided a valuable service and assumed a genuine financial obligation.
The committee heard testimony both in support of and in opposition to SB 562. Notably, a representative of the charitable bail organization The Bail Project testified in support of the measure, while representatives of the Golden State Bail Agents Association and the California Bail Agents Association testified in opposition.
Supporters argued that individuals whose charges are ultimately dismissed or never filed should not be financially burdened by the cost of obtaining a bail bond. Opponents countered that a bail bond company provides a service at the request of the defendant or the defendant’s representative and assumes an immediate financial risk in doing so. Bail agents are not in the business of determining guilt or innocence; rather, they underwrite the risk that a defendant may fail to appear in court. If enacted, SB 562 could force bail agents to consider factors outside their traditional underwriting role, including whether charges are likely to be dismissed within 21 days, because they cannot remain in business by providing services for which they are ultimately not compensated.
The argument that a defendant is being financially penalized when charges are not filed also deserves closer examination. Individuals are not arrested for peacefully walking down a public street. They are arrested based on probable cause that a crime has been committed. They are then booked, arraigned, and given a bail amount by the court. A bail agent is not involved in any part of that process. A bail agent becomes involved only when contacted by a defendant or a defendant’s representative seeking assistance in satisfying the bail requirement established by the court. Moreover, a defendant always retains the option of posting the full amount of bail directly with the court rather than purchasing a bail bond.
Consider a case of domestic violence. If a defendant is arrested, released on bond, and the charges are later dismissed or never filed within 21 days, should up to 80% of the bail premium be refunded? In California, law enforcement responds to approximately 160,000 domestic violence-related incidents annually. A significant percentage of these cases are not prosecuted or are later dismissed for a variety of reasons. This does not necessarily mean the arrest lacked probable cause. In many cases, a victim later declines to cooperate or testify. When charges are not pursued, the remaining consequences often include lost income, attorney fees, and the cost of obtaining release from custody. SB 562 would substantially reduce one of those consequences by requiring a refund of most of the bail premium.
The bill also raises a broader policy question: Why is the bail agent being singled out among all participants in the criminal justice process? An arrest often results in numerous costs, including attorney fees, towing and impound charges, lost wages, and other expenses. SB 562 does not require defense attorneys to refund a portion of their retainer. It does not require local governments to reimburse towing charges or compensate defendants for lost income. Instead, it places the burden solely on the bail agent, the one service provider who facilitated the defendant’s release from custody. Critics argue that the bill unfairly targets licensed bail agents while exempting all other participants in the arrest and release process from similar obligations.
SB 562 will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which typically does not hear public testimony.