Florida Judge Orders Man to Take Wife to Red Lobster

A  Florida Judge ordered a man accused of a domestic violence charge to take his wife out to Red Lobster as a condition of his bail bond. Judge John Hurley ordered the defendant who was accused of assaulting his wife to get her some flowers , dress up , take her to Red Lobster , and then to take her bowling. Also , the court ordered counseling . It appears the judge took a little heat for his unusual conditions of bail bond.

The story is important because in Tennessee domestic violence cases there are statutory conditions of bond in a domestic violence case. Tennessee Code Annotated 40-11-150 sets at those conditions ;

(1) An order enjoining the defendant from threatening to commit or committing specified offenses against the
alleged victim or other family or household member;
(2) An order prohibiting the defendant from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise
communicating with the alleged victim, either directly or indirectly;
(3) An order directing the defendant to vacate or stay away from the home of the alleged victim and to stay
away from any other location where the victim is likely to be;
(4) An order prohibiting the defendant from using or possessing a firearm or other weapon specified by the
magistrate;
(5) An order prohibiting the defendant from possession or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances;
and
(6) Any other order required to protect the safety of the alleged victim and to ensure the appearance of the defendant in court.

Luckily , the Tennessee statue does not require eating at Red Lobster together or going bowling.

New DUI Bail Bond Laws in Tennessee

Tennessee 's new bail bond laws on DUI second offenses and greater goes into effect on January 1 , 2011. Tomorrow , I am presenting a webinar for the Tennessee Bar Association on the new DUI bail bond laws as well as tips on how to lower a bail bond. I will be answering questions on the topic during the webinar.

New Law on DUI Bail Bonds Passes in Tennessee

There is an attack on our constitutional rights as it relates to DUI cases continue in Tennessee.   A new law goes in effect on January 1, 2011 which creates a host of issues.  Here's the new law ;



BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-11-118(a), is amended by adding the following at the end of the existing language: If the defendant has one or more prior convictions for
§ 55-10-401, § 39-13-106 or § 39-13-213(a)(2),
the defendant shall not be released unless the court first determines he or she is not a danger to the community.

The court may consider the use of monitoring devices to eliminate danger to the community including, but not limited to:
(1) Ignition Interlock devices;
(2) Transdermal monitoring devices or other alternative alcohol monitoring devices;
(3) Electronic monitoring with random alcohol or drug testing; or
(4) Pretrial residency in an in-patient alcohol or drug rehabilitation center.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-11-148, is amended by designating the existing language as subsection
(a) and by adding the following as a new subsection:
(b) If a defendant has been admitted to and released on bail for a violation of
§ 55-10-401, § 39- 13-106 or § 39-13-213(a)(2) and commits any of those crimes after release,
he or she shall be considered a danger to the community. He or she shall not be released with another bail unless the court first determines he or she is no longer a danger to the community. The court may consider the use of monitoring devices to eliminate the danger posed including, but not limited to:
(1) Ignition Interlock devices;
(2) Transdermal monitoring devices or other alternative alcohol monitoring devices;
(3) Electronic monitoring with random alcohol or drug testing; or
(4) Pretrial residency in an in-patient alcohol or drug rehabilitation center.

SECTION 3. This act shall take effect January 1, 2011, the public welfare requiring it.
 
The problem is that the Article I of the Tennessee Constitution prohibits excessive bail.
 
Who makes the determination of the priors?  It has been my experience that the priors are often wrong.
 
Who makes the decision that the accused is not a danger to society?  Some magistrate from Sumner County, Robertson County, or Rutherford County?  What are their qualifications for making this decision?  Can you get a lawyer or do you sit in jail?
 
The new law makes no sense unless you own stock in an ignition interlock company or a scram.
I wonder whose lobbyists were at work on this deal?