PDA

View Full Version : Rights taken while out on bail?


ryanburbridge
04-19-2011, 5:29 PM
Can anyone provide info on how a Judge can take away a persons right to keep and bear arms as a condition of bail?

Please cite the law if you can?

If a person is charged with a misdemeanor in CA and the misdemeanor is NOT a prohibiting conviction. How can a Judge say as a condition of bail that the person can not own or possess guns?

If the person was not given any paperwork stating that they can not own or possess firearms only word of mouth from the judge. How is this enforced?

I have googled this over and over and can't find the answer.

Thanks for any help!


"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

Grumpyoldretiredcop
04-19-2011, 7:58 PM
The Court may set conditions under which bail is allowed. The bail conditions are not directly linked to the consequences of conviction. I sat in courtrooms for 17+ years in CA and heard conditions set on bail many times. Sorry, I don't have the citation for you. That question should be addressed to an attorney.

Librarian
04-19-2011, 8:07 PM
PC 1269c (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1269c.html)
The magistrate or commissioner to whom the
application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or
she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to
ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of
domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that
he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate
Judge appear to have a lot of latitude.

Don29palms
04-19-2011, 8:16 PM
Can anyone provide info on how a Judge can take away a persons right to keep and bare arms as a condition of bail?


The judge doesn't care if your arms are bare or covered. If you can't have bare arms just wear long sleeve shirts.

If you're talking about the 2A it's "Keep and bear arms"

blakdawg
04-19-2011, 8:35 PM
Can anyone provide info on how a Judge can take away a persons right to keep and bare arms as a condition of bail?

Please cite the law if you can?

If a person is charged with a misdemeanor in CA and the misdemeanor is NOT a prohibiting conviction. How can a Judge say as a condition of bail that the person can not own or possess guns?

If the person was not given any paperwork stating that they can not own or possess firearms only word of mouth from the judge. How is this enforced?


Bail/OR/conditional release is essentially an agreement between the defendant and the court system - the defendant agrees to certain conditions, the court system agrees to let the defendant be out of jail pending trial.

It's not a deprivation of your 2A rights if you voluntarily choose to not own/possess any guns. If Donald Trump said "I'll pay you a billion dollars not to own guns for a year" and you agreed, that would not be a violation of your 2A rights.

If you don't like the conditions of the release, don't agree to them. They'll have to keep you in custody pending trial. There's some chance (depending on your county) that they'll let you go without the special conditions if they get crowded enough - or they may let you wait. If you're in custody, you'll get a trial date faster. On the other hand, you're in custody.

The judge's orders will be recorded by the clerk or the court reporter and will become part of what's called a "minute order" that memorializes the judge's actions/decisions. There will be a copy of the minute order either with the docket text or in the actual court file, different courts handle that differently.

If you have changed your mind, you could probably report to the sheriff's office/jail and tell them that you no longer agree to the terms of your release and that you would like to be taken back into custody.

There may be an interesting legal issue buried here but it's going to take the right combination of facts + defendant + budget (or motivated pro bono atty) to go somewhere with it. I began litigating a case regarding another constitutional right burdened by pretrial conditions of release once - but then the defendant plead guilty, got probation, pretrial conditions were no longer in effect, defendant wanted to get on with his life and not spend the next 5 years being someone's constitutional law project. Probably good judgment on his part, but that's a big part of why things like this don't get challenged.

cruising7388
04-20-2011, 10:37 AM
Bail/OR/conditional release is essentially an agreement between the defendant and the court system - the defendant agrees to certain conditions, the court system agrees to let the defendant be out of jail pending trial.

There may be an interesting legal issue buried here but it's going to take the right combination of facts + defendant + budget (or motivated pro bono atty) to go somewhere with it.

Shouldn't the scope of the conditions for conditional release be limited to conditions that serves the purpose of ensuring that the defendant 1.) doesn't flee the jurisdiction and 2.) appears before the court on the designated date?

Obviously, the court could quite reasonably could require a defendant to post bond, give up a passport and perhaps even the keys to his vehicle. And if the subject of the charge involved firearms, a constraint on possessing firearms during the hearing process could be in order. But could the judge impose a condition requiring the defendant to recite the pledge of allegiance five times a day throughout his release, or require him to attend church regularly, or prohibitit him from consuming any food that might cause eposides of flatulence at the defendant's court appearance?

Aren't there some limits that can be imposed as bail conditions?:rolleyes:

Caladain
04-20-2011, 10:50 AM
I'm pretty sure the courtroom is a magical place where most normal rules of the universe go out the window and a new set of basic parameters exist, namely with the Judge being mostly AllPowerful, within that room (not pertaining to the case or law or anything).

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is they can't do some things, but they're given a lot of leeway to maintain order in their court room and run things smoothly.


Shouldn't the scope of the conditions for conditional release be limited to conditions that serves the purpose of ensuring that the defendant 1.) doesn't flee the jurisdiction and 2.) appears before the court on the designated date?

Obviously, the court could quite reasonably could require a defendant to post bond, give up a passport and perhaps even the keys to his vehicle. And if the subject of the charge involved firearms, a constraint on possessing firearms during the hearing process could be in order. But could the judge impose a condition requiring the defendant to recite the pledge of allegiance five times a day throughout his release, or require him to attend church regularly, or prohibitit him from consuming any food that might cause eposides of flatulence at the defendant's court appearance?

Aren't there some limits that can be imposed as bail conditions?:rolleyes:

ryanburbridge
04-21-2011, 4:40 PM
Thank you.

Once the case is dropped before trial is there anything that must be done to regain the right to carry or own arms?


"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

SVT-40
04-21-2011, 10:48 PM
If you think state court judges have power. They don't even hold a candle to the power of a federal court judge. They are literally kings in their court rooms.

Heck I was on the side of the good guys and I was sometimes scared to be in federal court. One LA federal court judge had a policy that LEO's could not carry their firearms when in his court. It made it a pain because you would have to give your pistol to one of your partners outside the court room before entering the court testify.