I have discussed elsewhere criticisms and concerns asserted regarding money-based bail systems. Among other things, it is argued that money-based bail systems undermine public safety by allowing dangerous but wealthy people to buy their way out of jail with no supervision, and—citing recent empirical research—that unnecessary incarcerations of low-risk people who cannot pay their bonds causes more crime once those people are released. It also is asserted that unnecessary wealth-based detentions of low-risk individuals are unfair, disproportionately impact people of color and inefficiently use taxpayer resources. Finally, some point to successful legal challenges to money-based bail systems as creating litigation risk. In light of those criticisms and concerns, it is natural to wonder: How big a role does money play in our state’s bail system? The answer: A lot.
North Carolina law provides for several different types of pretrial release. They include:
- release on a written promise;
- custody release;
- unsecured bond;
- secured bond—sometimes called money bond because it requires financial resources to obtain release pretrial, and which can be imposed with or without electronic house arrest; and
- release to a pretrial services program.
G.S. 15A-534(a). North Carolina law contains an express preference for nonfinancial conditions except when certain circumstances are present. G.S. 15A-534(b). Notwithstanding the availability of other options for pretrial release and the statutory preference for nonfinancial conditions, data from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NC AOC) confirm that money bonds are the most common form of pretrial release in North Carolina. The data show that statewide for 2018, secured bonds were imposed in 72% of criminal cases. The heavy use of secured bonds holds true in both felony and misdemeanor cases. Looking just at cases where the highest charge was a misdemeanor, the data show that secured bonds were imposed in 68% of those cases.
Before I provide some county-level data, a few notes about the data source. First, this information comes from a data run from the NC AOC showing the last condition imposed in 2018 cases. There is no way to extract from the existing case management system a history of conditions imposed in individual cases; the only way to get that information is to pull case files. Thus, the last condition in this report may include the initial condition set by a magistrate; the condition set by a judge at the first appearance; or the condition set at a subsequent court proceeding. Second, apparently there is no field to code release to a pretrial services program. Thus, for counties that provide for that form of release, local practices will dictate how cases are reported in the data run. For example if they are coded as custody releases, they would show up in that number. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that in some counties release to a pretrial services program is coded as a secured bond, possibly inflating secured bond numbers in counties that have such programs. (If you are in a county that has pretrial services and know how these releases are coded in the NC AOC system for your jurisdiction, please let me know). And finally, the report only shows cases for which conditions were imposed. If charges were initiated by a citation or summons and the defendant was not later arrested in connection with those charges, the case is not included in this report.
And now some county-level data. Table 1 below shows the ten North Carolina counties with the highest percentage of secured bonds imposed in cases where the highest charge was a misdemeanor. Table 2 shows the ten North Carolina counties with the lowest percentage of secured bonds in those cases. Want to know where your county stands? I have posted a full spreadsheet here.
Table 1: 10 Counties with Highest Percentage of Secured Bonds in Misdemeanor Cases
| County | Percentage Secured Bonds–Misdemeanors |
| Franklin | 87.6% |
| Alamance | 85.1% |
| Dare | 84.9% |
| Pitt | 84.4% |
| Henderson | 83.8% |
| Wake | 83.6% |
| Bertie | 82.8% |
| McDowell | 82.3% |
| Warren | 82.0% |
| Brunswick | 81.1% |
Table 2: 10 Counties with Lowest Percentage of Secured Bonds in Misdemeanor Cases
| County | Percentage Secured Bonds–Misdemeanors |
| Gates | 32.9% |
| Mecklenburg | 41.8% |
| Tyrrell | 44.6% |
| Camden | 44.7% |
| Hyde | 47.0% |
| Cherokee | 51.8% |
| Haywood | 53.9% |
| Jackson | 54.1% |
| Buncombe | 55.2% |
| Davie | 55.7% |
At least two counties—Buncombe and Mecklenburg—in the group with the lowest percentage of secured bonds implemented bail reform efforts prior to the closing date of the 2018 report.
These percentages do not tell us anything about the nature of the misdemeanor cases at issue or the defendants’ pretrial risk. Because of limitations in the data, we also do not know how many cases involve imposition of a secured bond after a failure to appear. But the numbers give us one lens to look at our pretrial system. As such they confirm the prominent role of money in North Carolina’s bail system.
Want to learn more about North Carolina’s bail system and options for reform? My Criminal Justice Innovation Lab website has information: http://cjil.sog.unc.edu/.
How long are we going to beat this dead horse?
I guess it depends on whether it can pay
It’s not a “dead horse.” It’s alive and kicking. But I’ll take a stab at answering your question: Until the system changes and counties follow the law set out in 15A-534(a), (b), and (c). This is an incredibly important issue on both the state and national levels. I’m glad Ms. Smith is working on it and keeping us informed about what’s going on.
The single, simplest thing that can be done to improve the current system is to delete the loophole in the law that allows judges to ignore the law. That loophole is found in 15A-534 and 15A-535. The loophole allows judges to hold people under secured bonds in disregard to the law. It allows this by allowing judges to keep their reasons for imposing secured bonds secret. Since judges don’t have to tell anyone what their reasons are for imposing secured bonds, judges routinely hold people under secured bonds without any legal basis for imposing the secured bonds. To close this loophole we need to delete the language that makes it optional for judges to put their reasons for imposing a secured bond in writing. We need to require that judges put their reasons in writing. 15A-534(b) says that a judge who imposes a secured bond “must record the reasons for doing so in writing to the extent provided in the policies or requirements issued by the senior resident superior court judge pursuant to G.S. 15A-535(a).” In Wake County as apparently in many others, the local policies say the extent of writing required is zero. We should delete the wording of that statute from “to the extent required” until the end of the sentence. In 15A-535(a) the loophole-closing is even easier: change the word “may” to the word “must.” Once judges are required to put their reasons in writing they will be far more likely to follow the law and we will have far fewer people locked up while waiting for trial.
Jesus Christ!!!! That simple? You make an excellent point and so does she. For a quick example i am serving 18 months SUPERVISED probation for misdemeanor shoplifting(1st ever). I admit i was completely WRONG, but i was stealing groceries for my then 9 year old daughter. I myself was homeless at the time and she was living with my mother. I commit the crime and am arrested 2 weeks later under monetary secured bond. I sit in jail 14 days before seeing a judge and am released on 18 months SUPERVISED probation barring a 20 day suspended sentence. I am required to meet with a rookie PO and urinate into a cup once a month. Not to mention ive seen others with mile long rap sheets get TIME SERVED for the same offense!!! I honestly feel like my race and my wallet size(at the time) played a HUGE role in the outcome of my case. I now work full time and haven’t so much as jaywalked in over 11 months. They want 40 bucks every month for SUPERVISION FEES!!!???? I owe them 800 dollars at the time of this post and i honestly would rather complete my remaining 6 days in the klink. I need my piece of mind back.
To answer a question asked in the post, I defended in Onslow County from 2014-2015. We had a Pretrial release program there. And many of my clients were able to take advantage of them. In those cases, the secured bond remained in place so that the defendant knew that a Pretrial violation would land them back under the same bond they couldn’t make in the first place. It made things easier from a paperwork standpoint. Therefore, I believe that the state system would show those as secured, money bonds even though the defendant was able to get out of jail without paying any money.
For what it’s worth, (and I’ve been both a defense attorney and prosecutor) I found the Onslow system to be very good. It gave us a safety valve to get people who were not dangerous out of jail (and often into mental health or substance abuse treatment) while maintaining control over the defendants and ensuring they appeared for court.