COLUMBUS, Ohio, Sept. 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- With a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling, Tony Sylvester, owner of the Canton based Sly Bail Bonds with 15 offices in Ohio, said, "We now can help those folks, and uphold their 8th amendment rights, rich or poor so as to secure their constitutional right to be released from jail pending trial."
It had been the regular practice for Ohio trial courts to set a monetary bail pursuant to Rule 46(A)(2) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and to require the defendant to pay in cash (as opposed to collateral or surety) ten percent of the set bail amount. This is commonly referred to as a "10% Bond."
Prior to the ruling, Sylvester said, "We were forced to turn people away, despite their begging and pleading in some instances. That's because the following courts Massillon Municipal Court, Stark County Common Pleas Court, Portage County Common Pleas Court, Ravenna Municipal Court, Wayne County Municipal Court, Wayne County Common Pleas Court, Summit County Common Pleas Court, Akron Municipal Court, and courts in Licking County all required a 10 percent cash deposit to post bail and get released from jail while their court case is pending."
The ruling — the result of a legal challenge filed by Sylvester in 2012 — requires courts in the state to give defendants the option of making a 10 percent cash deposit on bail or use what's known as a surety bond (when a private bonding company is used).
All this changed when the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Sylvester v. Neal, 2014-Ohio-2926 held that this rule was unconstitutional
In this case, a claim was asserted that various County Clerk of Courts in concert with the County Court of Common Pleas was violating the constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals by requiring the posting of cash bonds, named 10% bonds, instead of permitting the individuals to secure the full amount of the bond through a surety. Even prior to Ohio Supreme Court's ruling it was well established that a bail bond that must be paid in cash only is unconstitutional. Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d. 309, 2005 Ohio 5125; State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541
There is no better "sufficient surety" than a bail bonding company. The very model upon which it operates comports with the purpose of bail. It has resources dedicated solely to hunting down and capturing those individuals (Bounty Hunters) who "skip bail" and making sure that they appear in court at no additional cost to the legal system or taxpayers.
For more information:
Sly Bail Bonds Full Story
SOURCE Sly Bail Bonds