Text: H.R.2734 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)All Bill Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (08/02/2001)

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 2734 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2734

    To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Federal Rules of 
       Criminal Procedure with respect to bail bond forfeitures.



                             August 2, 2001

 Mr. Barr of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Bass, Mr. Burton of 
 Indiana, Mr. Keller, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Meeks of New York, 
Mr. Mica, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Scott, Mr. Chabot, Ms. 
    Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Boehner) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary


                                 A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Federal Rules of 
       Criminal Procedure with respect to bail bond forfeitures.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the ``Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2001''.


    (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Historically, the sole purpose of bail in the United 
        States was to ensure the defendant's physical presence before a 
        court. The bail bond would be declared forfeited only when the 
        defendant actually failed to appear as ordered. Violations of 
        other, collateral conditions of release might cause release to 
        be revoked, but would not cause the bond to be forfeited. This 
        historical basis of bail bonds best served the interests of the 
        Federal criminal justice system.
            (2) Currently, however, Federal judges have merged the 
        purposes of bail and other conditions of release. These judges 
        now order bonds forfeited in cases in which the defendant 
        actually appears as ordered but he fails to comply with some 
        collateral condition of release. The judges rely on Federal 
        Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e) as authority to do so.
            (3) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e) has withstood 
        repeated court challenges. In cases such as United States v. 
        Vaccaro, 51 F.3d 189 (9th Cir. 1995), the rule has been held to 
        authorize Federal courts specifically to order bonds forfeited 
        for violation of collateral conditions of release and not 
        simply for failure to appear. Moreover, the Federal courts have 
        continued to uphold and expand the rule because they find no 
        evidence of congressional intent to the contrary, specifically 
        finding that the provisions of the ``Bail Bond Act of 1984'' 
        were not intended to supersede the rule.
            (4) As a result, the underwriting of bonds for Federal 
        defendants has become virtually impossible. Where once the bail 
        agent was simply ensuring the defendant's physical presence, 
        the bail agent now must guarantee the defendant's general 
        ``good behavior.'' Insofar as the risk for the bail agent has 
        greatly increased, the industry has been forced to adhere to 
        strict underwriting guidelines, in most cases requiring full 
        collateral. Consequently, the Federal criminal justice system 
        has been deprived of any meaningful bail bond option.
            (5) In the absence of a meaningful bail bond option, 
        thousands of defendants in the Federal system fail to show up 
        for court appearances every year. When this happens, the 
        expense and effort by Federal law enforcement officers to 
        investigate and apprehend defendants is wasted and the overall 
        interests of justice are thwarted.
    (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are:
            (1) To restore bail bonds to their historical origin as a 
        means solely to ensure the defendant's physical presence before 
        a court; and
            (2) To grant judges the authority to declare bail bonds 
        forfeited only where the defendant actually fails to appear 
        physically before a court as ordered and not where the 
        defendant violates some other collateral condition of release.


    (a)(1) Title 18, section 3146(d), is amended by inserting at the 
end, ``The judicial officer may not declare forfeited a bail bond for 
violation of a release condition set forth in clauses (i)-(xi), (xiii), 
or (xiv) of section 3142(c)(1)(B).''.
    (2) Title 18, section 3148(a), is amended by inserting at the end, 
``Forfeiture of a bail bond executed under clause (xii) of section 
3142(c)(1)(B) is not an available sanction under this section and such 
forfeiture may be declared only pursuant to section 3146.''.