Caught in the Crossfire of Government Overreach: The Case of "Scarlett"

A Broken Promise: Bail Is No Longer About Court Appearance

Here’s an inconvenient truth that few will admit but every veteran bail agent knows: bail has quietly shifted from a tool to guarantee court appearances into a revenue stream for the state.

This shift didn’t happen overnight. Like weight gain or credit card debt, it crept in through a series of small changes—fees here, restrictions there—until one day, the system we trusted was no longer recognizable.

🔴 The Scarlett Case

For today’s issue, let’s talk about “Scarlett,” a young female defendant charged with Assault in the Second Degree. In August 2023, she accepted a Deferred Acceptance of No Contest (DANC), with her attorney, Manny Guerrero, escorting her directly to the probation office post-sentencing. From a bail bond standpoint, our job was done.

Or so we thought.

Over a year later, Scarlett fell out of contact with her probation officer, violating the terms of her DANC. The court issued a bond forfeiture—on a bond that had already fulfilled its purpose and was legally discharged.

📜 What the Law Actually Says

Bail agents guarantee appearance through the resolution of the case-in-chief. Once sentencing happens—especially with a DANC—the bond is discharged. Probation violations are a new issue, separate from the original case. Continuing to hold the bail agent liable is like enforcing a contract that’s already expired.

🧠 The Attorney General’s Creative Arguments

The AG’s office employed increasingly inventive interpretations in an attempt to justify keeping the forfeiture:

• Arguing that standard discharge language doesn’t apply because it appears on a bail bond “cover sheet,” but not explicitly in duplicate on the bail bond receipt.

• Claiming that unless a discharge is explicitly recorded in court, the bond continues indefinitely

• Suggesting that probation violations automatically reactivate and forfeit the original bail bond, if the court does not formally discharge bond on the record earlier.

These arguments not only stretch legal reasoning—they distort the original intent of what a bail bond actually is.

⚠️ The Real Risks We Face

Let’s be real. Capturing an uncooperative young female like Scarlett brings not just physical danger, but also legal liability. In today’s climate, a wrongful accusation during apprehension—kidnapping, assault, sexual misconduct—could destroy a bail agent’s career.

And if Scarlett isn’t on bond with A-1 Bail Bonds, what surrender powers do we legally have as the surety when a case was resolved back in 2023. Would the police even accept a discharge, or would they refuse and not signed our discharge paperwork? 

✅ The Resolution and What It Reveals

After months of legal wrangling, mounting attorney fees, and unnecessary stress, the court ultimately recognized the error. In the set aside hearing, the judge granted our motion to set aside the bond forfeiture, noting it was a “clerical error.” The matter was resolved in moments, no arguments were heard. 

Court Record:
"MEMO IN OPP FILED 12/03/24; THE COURT GRANTED MOTION TO SET ASIDE BOND FORFEITURE, NOTED A CLERICAL ERROR; MR. KIUCHI TO PREPARE THE ORDER; THE STATE WAIVES SIGNATURE."

This resolution confirms what we knew all along—the forfeiture was improper. But consider the resources wasted: legal fees, court time, administrative costs, and the stress placed on A-1’s business for absolutely no valid reason.

💬 Final Thoughts

In 20+ years as a licensed bail agent, I’ve never seen the system so rigged against those of us trying to help. We used to be part of the solution—getting people out fast and holding them accountable, without costing the state a penny. Now, the invisible hand of government has transformed bail into a trap for the private sector.

“Justice shouldn’t come with a price tag for doing your job right.”

-Got Bail Nick