New Bail Bond Procedure Could Lower Bond Amount if Passed

Judges can require bail if they determine a defendant is likely to miss court dates for any reason, Washington law states. Under the proposal, defendants could be freed with no bail unless a judge found a “high likelihood” that the accused would skip court to avoid prosecution as opposed to missing court dates due to lack of transportation or other reasons aside from a desire to flee justice.

Bail bondsmen also face changes. Defendants with enough money can be released by posting bail with the court, which is refunded upon adjudication, regardless of the case’s outcome. Defendants without means typically pay 10% of the bail amount to a bail bondsman, who keeps the money upon case completion and can be required to pay the full amount if a defendant disappears. The proposal would allow defendants to be released if they post 10% with the court instead of a bondsman, which would allow defendants to get their money back when their cases are resolved.

The proposal also would cap the amount of bail at $200 for most misdemeanors, with defendants being allowed to bail out for 10%, or $20 if bail is set at the maximum. The cap wouldn’t apply to Driving While Intoxicated cases or cases involving domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, indecent exposure, discharge of firearms, and a handful of other offenses, according to the proposal posted on the Supreme Court’s website.

Judges could still impose bail if they determine a defendant would pose a risk to public safety if released, said Katie Hurley, special counsel for criminal practice and policy for the King County public defender’s office, adding that someone charged with first-degree murder wouldn’t walk free without paying bail.

“This wouldn’t affect those sorts of cases where the offense is very serious,” said Hurley, whose agency is one of three public defender offices that is asking the court for an overhaul.

Patterned after practices in Illinois, Vermont, and New York state, public defenders have said the proposed changes are intended to put defendants lacking funds on an equal footing with defendants who can afford bail.

Hurley and others backing the proposal said it’s a matter of being fair. Proponents also said that defendants who pay a court instead of a bail bondsman are more likely to make court dates and comply with court orders so they can get their money back. Bail bondsmen, Hurley stated, rarely hunt down bail jumpers and usually don’t pay the court even if a defendant disappears.

“From my perspective, we’re trying to take some common sense steps,” she said.

Not everyone agrees.

“All this is going to result in is more failures to appear,” said Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke. “To me, it’s ridiculous.”

The Supreme Court has received more than 500 comments on the proposal as of April 24, mostly from opponents who include prosecutors from King and Pierce counties, the state’s two largest. Stevens County Prosecutor Erika George said she’s also opposed.

Defendants giving bail money to the court instead of a bail bondsman might burden the court clerk’s office, George said, but otherwise isn’t a significant problem, given that bail bondsmen are rarely required to forfeit the full amount of bail if defendants skip.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily going to have a big impact,” George said. “They (defendants) would be on the hook for the same amount of money they’d be on the hook for anyway.”

But capping bail at $200 for accused misdemeanants and allowing defendants out of jail with no bail who now would be behind bars, is a problem, according to George.

A defendant would have to skip at least one court date and be found to have a high likelihood of skipping more dates with a goal of avoiding prosecution before a judge could require bail, according to George and the proposal posted on the Supreme Court’s website.

“That’s the part that’s frustrating,” George said. “These are coming out of big counties. We do this a lot differently than other counties.”

Consider Nicholas Alan Case, 40, who’s been in the Stevens County jail since March 29, 2025, after sheriff’s deputies arrested him for allegedly fleeing police on a motorcycle near Chewelah. His bail is set at $15,000.

Told the bare facts of the case, Hurley said that Case, whose attorney did not return a phone call, sounds like someone who would have a shot at being freed with no bail instead of being confined upon arrest for more than a year.

“If a judge finds that a person is a threat to safety, the judge can impose bail without allowing them out,” Hurley said. “Otherwise, if the person is not likely to threaten witnesses or commit a violent offense, you have to give them a chance.”

Court records show Case’s criminal history, which began when he was a juvenile, includes at least 16 convictions for crimes including drug possession, hit-and-run, possession of a stolen vehicle, vehicular assault, eluding police, and possession of a stolen vehicle. He has missed at least 20 court dates for misdemeanor charges, according to Spokane County court records, and four court dates while charged with felonies. Asked about the pending case, George said that he’s facing about three years in prison.

“The defenders offices in Snohomish and King counties will say, ‘This guy shouldn’t be in jail, it’s not violent stuff,’” the prosecutor said. “From my standpoint, when he’s driving, he’s a danger.”

Capping bail at $200 for misdemeanors would be a mistake, George said.

“That is absolutely crazy to me,” she said.

Standard bail for misdemeanors charged in Stevens County District Court is between $500 and $1,500, George said, with $5,000 the highest bail she’s seen. A history of warrants typically triggers high bail, she said.

“They get so many chances,” George said. “It’s got to be pretty terrible for a $5,000 bail.”

The Supreme Court, George predicted, will side with public defenders.

“I fully expect them to adopt whatever recommendations the public defenders on that side of the state are asking for,” she said.