Category: Blog (page 2 of 2)

How To Avoid Arrest In Hartford, CT

How to avoid being arrested in Hartford CT? That is the sort of consideration most people rarely encounter in their daily lives. As a professional Hartford Bail Bondsman, today we’re going to cover how you can stay safe in the streets when being a productive citizen.

But what should you do if you truly believe that the police are a potent threat to your freedom? Well, this might sound obvious, but you should probably try to stay on the right side of the law. If you want more information, please visit the Hartford police department for more notice.

A Raleigh Bail Bondsman states that it is important to understand the laws in your town or city to avoid arrest at all costs.

Ensure You Know Your Rights In Hartford, CT  

Break no rules of significance and the police will have no reason to arrest you. But what if you come face to face with a police officer or two, and what if they start showing a less than healthy interest in you?

Well, in that case, you need to stay calm. Remember, you don’t have to talk to them. It is within your rights to remain absolutely silent. So even if you’ve done nothing wrong, you are better off keeping your mouth shut.

You are less likely to incriminate yourself in any crimes if you stay silent. And even if there is evidence on you, in your house or even in your car proving that you actually committed a crime, try to remember that the police cannot search you or your things unless you permit them to do so.

People forget that particular aspect of the law. Keep the police away from your person and your property. You shouldn’t lie or provide false documents but you are not obligated to help the police in Hartford in anywhere that might get you arrested.

Leave A Scene Where Arrest Seems Likely 

Of course, it might help if you refrain from acting suspiciously. Better yet, just leave. Ultimately, if the police have simply stopped you and they are merely talking to you but you are not under arrest, they cannot stop you from leaving.

So get up and leave. The more time you spend around the police, especially if they suspect that you committed a crime, the more likely you are to give them a reason to arrest you, especially if you are the nervous type.

If you’re ever in the need to get bailed out in Hartford, CT – start by contacting Connecticut Bail Bonds group today for a free consultation.

Immigration Bond Cost – How Much Does an Immigration Bond Cost? Chino Express Bail Bonds

Most consumers equate an immigration bond to a bail bond as there is an individual in jail that needs to be released on bond. Even though these two types of bonds are similar conceptually, there are huge differences in the cost. An immigration bond is a type of federal civil performance bond whereas a bail bond is an appearance bond. What this means is that a bail bond is simply a tool used to guarantee a defendant’s appearance for all court dates pending the outcome or more commonly known in the industry, disposition of their case. An immigration bond is a tool used to guarantee that a person living within the United States unlawfully will appear for all of their immigration proceedings until they are either deported, granted residency or leave the country voluntarily in accordance with an order issued by an immigration judge. These bonds are regulated by the Federal Government while bail bonds are regulated by the State in which the bond is executed. For bail bonds, the State typically determines and sets the bail bond premium which in most States is ten percent of the set bond amount.

There is no universal set premium rate for an immigration bond. While the Federal Government regulates the laws relating to these bonds, the premium charged for these bonds is actually regulated by the State in which the contract is executed. In order to post or put up an immigration bond, an agent or agency must be appointed as the attorney-in-fact for an insurance company published in the United States Department of Treasury Circular 570. In other words, the insurance company has credit with the United States Government and is authorized to issue immigration bonds. An insurance company that transacts immigration bonds must file for a premium rate in each state it intends to conduct business. Once the State approves the insurance company’s rate filing that is the rate they must charge to all clients in that particular State.

What this means is quite simple; different insurance companies have different premium rates for immigration bonds. This is exactly what many consumers do not understand and because of this, they extremely end up paying excessive premiums on these bonds. Company A may charge a renewable premium each year year meaning that every year the case goes on, the consumer must pay a new premium. Company B may charge a one-time premium and Company C may charge something else. Some companies even impure a minimum number of years their contract is valid. So, even if the case ends before one year, the consumer must still pay another year’s premium. Immigration bonds typically remain active for several years and in some rare cases have even been known to remain active for so long that a consumer may end up paying the entire amount of the bond (and possibly more) in renew premiums!

The point here is simple, always ask the agent that you are dealing with these 3 Questions:

1. What is the agent charging for their service?
2. Does the agent charge any renewal fees?
3. Is the agent appointed by an insurance company published in the Circular 570?

In times of desperation, consumers will sign documents without first having read them or without first having been properly explained the terms and conditions of the contracts. Always be sure to read through every document you intend on signing and if something is unclear or does not make sense, do not be afraid to ask. For more information regarding immigration bonds, you should contact an immigration bond expert. Find one at

Spotlight: Cory Booker’s New Sentencing Reform Bill Is About Redemption

An article by Campbell Robertson in the New York Times today looks at the case of Angelo Robinson, in prison in Ohio since 1997 for the murder of Veronica Jackson, committed when Robinson was 20 years old. A new project, Beyond Guilt, filed its first motion in June, arguing for Robinson’s release. Robinson’s first opportunity for release on parole is otherwise not until 2026 when he will be almost 50.

Advocates with Beyond Guilt met with members of Veronica Jackson’s family last summer. When they went to her sister Patricia Jackson’s home in Cincinnati, she was initially reluctant to talk to them. Two advocates, including Tyra Patterson, who herself spent 23 years in prison on a murder conviction, spoke with Jackson, at moments through tears, about “tragic mistakes, remorse, retribution and the possibility of redemption.” A week later, Patricia Jackson called Patterson. She wanted them to get Robinson out of prison.

David Singleton, the founder of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center, told the Times that Beyond Guilt was a response to the reality that too many reform proposals, including a recent one in Ohio, left people convicted of violent crimes behind. Reforms often relied on “throwing a whole lot of people under the bus,” he said. Singleton conceived of the new project “to emphasize that guilt is not an endpoint but the possible beginning of a ‘story of redemption.’”

With efforts underway to reverse the decades-long story of mass incarceration in the United States, redemption is a word that comes up in multiple contexts including sentencing reform, voting rights, record expungement, and opportunities for employment and education after release.

The U.S. incarceration rate has gone down by more than 10 percent in the past decade, according to 2017 figures, but there are still nearly 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, the highest number anywhere in the world. But after decades of policies that treated people as irredeemable and of harsh prison sentences as the solution to crime, the United States has more people in jail and prison than any other country in the world. The pace of decarceration efforts still fails to match the scale of the problem. At current rates of decarceration, it will be 75 years before the U.S. prison population is even cut in half.

The reasons for this slow reversal are many, but one is a reluctance on the part of lawmakers to address the lengthy sentences handed down to people convicted of violent crimes. Sentence lengths in the United States are in a league of their own. The city of Philadelphia alone has more people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole than any other country in the world.

That is why a bill introduced in Congress this week by Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Representative Karen Bass of California is so significant. The Matthew Charles and William Underwood Second Look Act would make opportunities to petition for resentencing available to anyone in federal prison who has served at least 10 years.

Matthew Charles was released in January under the provisions of the recent First Step Act. His story had attracted widespread attention leading up to his release and he was a guest of President Trump’s at the State of the Union address. Charles wrote in the Washington Post shortly after his release that the First Step Act was “a great start,” but “we have to do more. I got a second chance—and so should so many others.” Specifically, he called for Congress to pass a law that would allow all people in federal prisons a chance at release after a specified period of time, perhaps 15 years. “Some might think this idea is too lenient,” Charles writes, “but 15 years is a long time. From what I saw during my years behind bars, anyone who wants and deserves a second chance would be able to demonstrate that within 15 years.”

Senator Booker, who co-sponsored the First Step Act, met with Charles after his release and discussed the idea of second-look legislation. Now he has introduced legislation that bears Charles’s name and is rooted in the principle that individuals, regardless of their conviction, have the capacity for change.

The bill is evidence that Booker is not shying away from the meaningful criminal justice reform that many had hoped he would champion as a presidential candidate. (In a 2016 Vox interview, in response to a question about how to respond to violent crimes, Booker pointed out that the United States is “different than most places on the planet Earth in terms of the lengths of our sentences even for violent crimes.” In February, after Booker announced his candidacy, the Daily Appeal consideredwhether he would champion reforms addressing excessive sentences for violent convictions.)

In a statement applauding the bill, the president of FAMM (where Matthew Charles is a fellow) said: “We have to stop throwing so many people away. People can change, and our sentencing laws ought to reflect that. Lengthy prison sentences are not always the right answer, especially when someone has proven their commitment to rehabilitation. Public safety can be improved by taking a second look at those lengthy sentences, reducing them when warranted, and redirecting anti-crime resources where they might actually do some good.”

A FAMM white paper on the need for federal second-look legislation noted: “As of May 2019, more than half of the federal prison population was 36 years old or older—past the ages of highest risk. Nearly one in five people (19.2 percent) in federal prison are over age 50, well into the period of life at which we see a steep decrease in recidivism risk.”

Under the provisions of the bill, anyone serving a sentence of more than 10 years in federal prison, regardless of their original sentence, would have the opportunity to petition a judge for release after 10 years. It would also create a presumption in favor of release for anyone 50 years or older. The bill does not exclude people convicted of violent crimes from consideration.

This is significant. It takes what has become more widely recognized among advocates and academics—that sentencing reform must include people serving sentences for violent offenses—and translates that recognition into federal policy.

The legislation would also give federal judges, many of whom have criticizedmandatory-minimum sentencing schemes that curtail judicial discretion and give prosecutors enormous power, a new opportunity to consider the appropriateness of a sentence in light of a person’s development since the original sentencing. In a piece for the New York Times this week, a federal judge in Florida wrote of her decision, made possible by the recent First Step Act, to resentence Robert Clarence Potts III, sentenced to life in prison in 1999 when he was 28.

Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote of the original sentencing judge’s uneasiness about the mandatory sentence he was forced to impose. But what mattered most in her decision, she said, was who Potts showed himself to be over his 20 years in prison, and who he became over the course of his 30s and 40s. He worked, studied, and set about creating a life of purpose and achievement. What struck Judge Rosenberg, she said, was that he did not do this for anyone who might review his record and consider him for release. Given his sentence, he expected to die in prison. Instead, he will be released today.

Booker and Bass’s new bill would make those opportunities for a second chance available to everyone serving a lengthy sentence in federal prison. It gives people the opportunity to go before a federal judge to be considered for release based not on who they were a decade or decades earlier and what crime they committed at that time, but on who they are today.

In an interview with the Daily Appeal, Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives at the Sentencing Project, explained the significance of the Second Look Act. Numerically, she said, the bill could have an enormous impact, given that half the people in federal prison, around 82,000 people, are serving sentences that are 10 years or longer. Importantly, she said, it would also affect people “who would otherwise die in prison because of their life sentences.”

The bill is also important because unlike previous sentencing reforms, which were, in Gotsch’s words “narrowly crafted,” it “would apply to everyone.” Gotsch emphasized the importance of the bill “not singling out people who have only committed certain kinds of crimes. It is based simply on the length of sentences and that’s really significant and something we haven’t really seen anywhere, this sort of broad consideration of relief from long sentences.”

Gotsch said she hopes the Second Look Act offers a model for states to emulate. “There’s been a good trend of reform happening at the state and the federal level and because of that we have now seen the unprecedented growth in incarceration stop in the last 10 years or so. And we’ve seen a small but steady decline in the rates of incarceration. That’s a good thing, but it is insufficient. We need to do much more and make sure the reform proposals are much more comprehensive and do not leave people out, including people who have committed violent offenses and people serving life sentences because those people are likely to change over time.”

This Spotlight originally appeared in The Daily Appeal newsletter. Subscribe here.

Bail Bond Companies Helping Blameless People Chino Express Bail Bonds

Do you know someone who has been put behind the bars but is not guilty? There are situations when you face charges even when you are not guilty. In such situations, you feel embarrassed and helpless as you are left with no option of how to overcome the problem. As the court wants to give equal chance to both the parties, it provides bail to the accused person so as to give time in preparing for the case for proving himself innocent.

When you are granting bail, you will need to pay some amount to the court. The bail amount is set as per the seriousness of the crime and has to be paid by the accused for granting bail. However, if the amount is huge and an accused in unable to pay it, they take the help of bail bond agents. There are bail bond companies that provide some amount of money to the court to assure the presence of accused on all the coming court dates.

The accused person will have to pay only 10% of the bail amount and the rest of the amount will be paid by the company. After court trials, if the accused is proved as innocent and also appears on all court dates, the amount is then refunded to the bail bond company by the court.

Although the amount for bail is decided on terms of seriousness of crime, the bail plea can also be rejected if the crime is highly offensive. Every court charges the amount that is fixed as per the government to ensure transparency in the bail system.

The bail bond companies also work in accordance with laws set by government for granting and refusal of bail. Attaining bail is not a guaranteed process and therefore, must take initial consultation to know the chances before trying for it. With this consultation, you will have a clear picture in front of your eyes and you will act accordingly.

If you know someone who is caught in similar kind of situation, you can suggest them to hire bail bond agents that are located in their city having relevant experience for easily and early solutions. You never know this decision can help your loved ones to come out of a situation they shouldn’t be in. The bail agents will only take up the case when they will see some chances of winning the case.

Newer posts »