by Ralph Chapoco, Alabama Reflector
April 29, 2025

Two bills that would change Alabama’s bail system are working their way through the Legislature in the waning days of the 2025 session.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hosted a public hearing Wednesday for HB 42, sponsored by Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, which gives judges the authority to allow defendants to pay a portion of their total bond to be released from pretrial detention.

HB 410, sponsored by Rep. Shane Stringer, R-Citronelle, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, modifies the composition of the Alabama Professional Bail Bonding Board, expands the exemptions for the fees that bail bond companies must pay the court, increases penalties for bail jumping and adds more regulations for bail bond companies when they operate in another state.

A message was sent to Stringer Monday seeking comment.

HB 42 has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The House is scheduled to vote on HB 410 on Tuesday. England’s bill adds three words, “a part of” back into an  Alabama statute that were removed when the same Legislature enacted the Alabama Bail Reform Act of 1993.

The removal of the words meant judges in the state could not allow defendants to pay a percentage of their bond to get release from pretrial detention.

“What that translates into is a large amount of money that would normally go to the court system, instead of going to the court system, it goes to a bondsman,” England said to the committee Wednesday.

People can secure their release after an arrest if they pay a bail bond company. The premium, which is typically 10% of the total amount of the bond, is paid to the bail bond company, which then must ensure the individuals go to their court appearances.

The money that people pay when released on a percentage bond would be retained by the court and kept if defendants fail to appear for their court dates.

The Alabama Bail Bond Association has been a vocal opponent of the bill, speaking out against the legislation at a March public hearing and the House Judiciary Committee considered it then and eventually approved the bill a week later.

Victor Howard, vice president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association and bail bond company owner, said that enacting the legislation would reduce accountability for defendants to appear for their court dates.

Chris McNeil, the president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association, suggested Monday in an interview that the rates that people would not appear for court would increase. He also cited records from the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts saying that people who paid cash to be released from pretrial detention in 2022 and 2023 had a failure to appear (FTA) rate of 55%.

“The court just can’t function when you have a failure to appear rate of 55%,” McNeil said Monday. “The bonding companies were averaging about a 14%-15% failure to appear rate. And were able to trim that rate by returning defendants back to court.”

England told the committee that the numbers do not present a fair comparison to percentage bonds.

“The numbers are obviously going to be off because there are more people on smaller offenses with cash bonds versus somebody who is on a large bond with a bondsman,” England said to the committee on Wednesday. “Obviously, there is going to be a higher number of FTAs on smaller cases, traffic tickets, because they all count.”

Jerome Dees, policy director from the Southern Poverty Law Center, supported the legislation.

“The vast majority of times when there was an FTA that was ultimately secured, and the defendant showed up in court, it largely was due to law enforcement bringing that individual in and not the bail bond company,” he said to the committee on Wednesday. “That is not to say that it never happened, but the vast majority of time it was law enforcement bringing that particular individual in.”

McNeil said in an interview Monday he supports HB 410, Stringer’s bill.

“It expands the Alabama Professional Bail Bonding Board by adding a sheriff to the board, adding a layperson, so I think that is very important,” he said.

It also states that any fees that bail bond companies pay to the court that have not been deposited within 90 days and that have an expiration date “shall be deemed uncollected” and will no longer hold the bail bond company responsible for making the payment.

The bill also exempts bail bond companies from fees that the courts or district attorneys have not attempted to collect past one year from the original due date.

HB 410 also adds more conditions such that the bail bond company will not pay a fee, known as forfeiture, to the court when in cases that the defendant fails to appear in court.

McNeil said the bill would cancel that forfeiture payment if someone was not placed in the National Crime Information Center and failed to appear in court, or if the bail bond company brings back a defendant that the jail refuses to accept.

The bill also addresses instances when an individual travels out of state and enhances the penalty for bail jumping, going from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Bail reform bills moving through Alabama Legislature in final days of session appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The content focuses on legislative efforts to reform Alabama’s bail system, highlighting a bill sponsored by a Democratic representative aimed at allowing partial bond payments to reduce the financial burden on defendants. It presents arguments from both supporters and opponents, including the bail bond industry’s concerns and civil rights advocacy perspectives. The article leans slightly left by emphasizing criminal justice reform and the perspective of proponents seeking to reduce penal system inequities, yet it maintains a generally balanced tone by including conservative viewpoints and the legislative process details.