Alabama lawmakers are weighing a proposal to overhaul the state's bail system.

House Bill 42, sponsored by Sen. Christopher England, D-Tuscaloosa, would amend the Alabama Bail Reform Act, allowing courts to accept a partial cash deposit from a defendant instead of requiring the full bail amount - if approved by a judge.

England said the change would keep more money within the court system, which would benefit both the state and the people who are owed restitution.

"It affords a defendant an opportunity to get out and pay cash directly to the court," he said. "And what that does is, in the event that that person then does not return, the court keeps the cash - pays fines, pays court costs and also pays restitution."

Under the current law, a defendant must pay the full cash bail amount up front, in order to be released before trial. This bill would allow judges to approve partial cash deposits instead. In a public hearing on the bill this week, opponents raised concerns about accountability.

Victor Howard, vice president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association, warned that what he sees as loosening bail requirements could lead to more defendants skipping court, ultimately making it harder to ensure they face justice.

"If this bill is passed, that's what we're going to be introducing into this state. We're going to have the exact opposite of accountability, people appearing for court," he said. "If they do miss and they're out on a percentage bond, a warrant would be issued. They'll be put on a case administrative docket, and that's it."

England pushed back against those claims, arguing that bail bonds don't guarantee a person's attendance. He noted that the state has missed out on significant court revenue because of bond forfeitures when defendants fail to appear.

"The only way that, nine times out of ten, we get the money to our court system is through a percentage bond on cash," he said. "Basically you're choosing between either that money going to a bondsman - where we don't ever see it in the court system - or we get cash, so in the event that they show up, at least you get some of the money that they owe."

House Bill 42 awaits a vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Indiana lawmakers continue to debate THC rules while surrounding states move forward with marijuana legalization.

Senate Bill 478 targets packaging and branding rules for legal THC products sold to people 21 and older. Lawmakers want to prevent the products from mimicking candy or snacks, which might appeal to minors. The bill would require testing and stricter packaging for craft hemp flower and other THC items.

Rep. Jake Teshka, R-North Liberty, sponsored the bill.

"This market right now is the wild, wild West," Teshka contended. "I think what this bill attempts to do is to ensure that the safety of Hoosier youth and Hoosier consumers comes first and primary in our efforts to regulate this product."

Delta 8, Delta 9 and Delta 10 products-chemicals with THC levels under 0.3% remain legal in Indiana and often appear in gas stations, smoke shops and dispensaries. Committee members provided input for possible changes to the bill and recessed before acting but plan to reconvene soon.

Although marijuana sales remain illegal in Indiana, nearby states allow both recreational and medical use. Across the country, nearly 40 states allow medical marijuana and 24 permit recreational sales.

Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, said in conference committee Monday the current bill offers far too many permits.

"In the future, if there are additional permits needed we could always come back and increase that number of permits," Wesco argued. "But the 20,000 is essentially more than 200 locations per county in our state on average, and I think is far too accessible and available."

The House has passed two amendments to the bill this session. One limits sales near schools and another changes the definition of e-liquids.


get more stories like this via email

Parents of students killed or injured in school-zone crosswalks are backing a measure in the Ohio General Assembly to increase the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The bill, entitled "Aspen Runnel's Law," was introduced after 15-year-old Aspen Runnels was struck and killed in a crosswalk outside Lakota East Freshman School in Butler County last year.

Aspen's mother, Christina Alcorn, said the 30-day sentence given to the driver is not enough of a deterrent for speeding in a school zone.

"We're hoping that people will start paying a little bit more attention," said Alcorn, "because we all have children in our lives - whether it's our own children, grandchildren, godchildren, nieces, nephews, whatever it may be. Almost everybody has a child in their life that they want to see come home safely."

The driver pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide in Aspen's death and was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 60 days of house arrest, probation, and community service.

The new law would make vehicular homicide in a school zone a felony, with six to 18 months in prison and fines of up to $5,000.

Alcorn is working to pass the bill with another Ohio mother, Trisha Parnell, whose daughter Maddy was struck and seriously injured in 2018 in a collision in a school zone in the same district.

Alcorn said she was shocked by how lenient the school zone penalties were compared to other types of collisions.

"We were a little baffled," said Alcorn. "Most people that we've spoken to about this have been, first of all, surprised that this wasn't already a law on the book, but also that the children in the school zone were not considered protected like a construction zone would be."

House Bill 203 awaits a hearing before the Ohio House Judiciary Committee. Alcorn said she wants tougher consequences so drivers think twice before speeding in a school zone.

"The main thing is that the charges are elevated," said Alcorn, "and that people feel a deterrent for speeding or distracted driving in school zones."

April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month. According to the National Highway Safety Administration, more than 3,200 people were killed in 2023 by distracted drivers.

This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.



get more stories like this via email

Indiana lawmakers approved a bill Tuesday to eliminate judgeships in eleven mostly rural counties as part of a statewide judicial reallocation.

The Senate passed the measure 33-16, sending it back to the House for consideration. House Bill 1144 originally added judicial positions in Elkhart, Hamilton, Lawrence and Vigo counties but senators amended the bill just before a key deadline to cut one court each in Blackford, Carroll, Gibson, Greene, Jennings, Monroe, Newton, Owen, Pulaski, Rush and Scott counties. It also removes six juvenile magistrate positions in Marion County.

Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, said her constituents were shocked by the news.

"I know there're others that wish maybe counties would have been named instead of waiting until the final day for the final meeting in appropriations to actually make that list," Leising pointed out. "That's created quite a frenzy."

State officials said the move will save nearly $750,000 in 2027 and up to $2.75 million by 2032.

Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pushed back against some senators who raised concerns about the timing and transparency of the amendment.

"I'm going to disagree a little bit, this caseload quote - or whatever it's called - and that was last minute, it's not," Brown stated. "They're all very much aware of this because when they come before the summer study every two years, these are the exact numbers and measurements they use when they ask us to add a court."

The House must now decide whether to accept the changes or send the bill to a conference committee.


get more stories like this via email