North Dakota Case Laws
Click on the below to read North Dakota Case Laws for the following years:
2012
2010
North Dakota Case Law 2012
In Bradford v. Garnett, 2012 WL 850894 (N.D.Tex. February 1, 2012) a pretrial detainee filed a civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. §1983 against, among others, a bail bond agency. The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the bail bond agency gave him incorrect information, which led him to miss his appearance date and caused forfeiture of his bond. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the claim because the bail bond agent was not a state actor for purposes of §1983. The district court adopted the Magistrate’s recommendation, see 2012 WL 860916 (N.D.Tex. March 13, 2012).
In State v. Hayes, 2012 WL 89091 (N.D. January 12, 2012) the trial court added a condition to the defendant’s bond that the defendant consent to warrantless searches of her person, automobile and house. Such a search of her house found drug paraphernalia, and the defendant admitted recent drug use. The Court overturned her conviction on additional charges growing out of the search because the trial court was not authorized to condition her release on consent to such searches. The Court did not reach Constitutional objections to the condition because it held imposition of the condition was not justified by the record before the district court and N.D.R.Crim.P. 46(a)(3). The Rule listed seven factors the district court must consider in imposing pretrial release conditions to assure the defendant’s appearance. The record did not show any evidence or testimony to support a finding that the warrantless search condition would help assure the defendant’s appearance. Therefore, the district court acted arbitrarily in granting the Government’s request for the added condition, and the arbitrary action was an abuse of discretion.
In Markadonatos v. Village of Woodbridge, 2012 WL 74857 (N.D.Ill. January 6, 2012) the court dismissed a complaint objecting to the $30 booking fee collected by the Village from everyone posting bail.
North Dakota Case Law 2010
In United States v. Powell, 2010 WL 2557388 (N.D.Cal. June 21, 2010) the Magistrate Judge rejected the Government’s argument that the sureties on an appearance bond must demonstrate assets adequate to cover the bond amount. The Magistrate Judge held that she could order an “unsecured” appearance bond pursuant to the catch-all provision of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3142(c)(1)(xiv): “any other condition that is reasonably necessary” to assure the defendant’s appearance and community safety.