MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama House recently passed a bill that would grant judges the discretion to accept less than the total bail amount in exchange for a detained person’s release, a reform that the bill’s sponsor says is an effort to regulate an inadequately overseen industry.
Sponsored by Rep. Chris Engalnd, D-Tuscaloosa, House Bill 42 would only apply to cash bail, one of four types of bail in the state. England argues that courts would retain far more forfeited bail money, as in many cases, bail bondsmen are not being forced to bear the costs incurred when arrested individuals, after having been released on bond posted by a bondsman, fail to appear in court.
“Ultimately, this bill is just a choice between do you want the money to go to the court system, or do you want it to go to a bonding agency?” England said when introducing his bill on the House floor recently.
England has filed similar bills for the past two years, with his attempt in 2023 failing to make it out of committee. In 2024, his effort to reform cash bail passed out of the House with a vote of 71-26, but failed to be taken up for a vote in the Senate, which was preoccupied in lengthy debates over gambling legislation, leaving many other bills on the cutting room floor.
This year, however, England has said he’s hopeful his bill would become law, and on the House floor, he gained a new ally in his efforts.
“I agree that it needs reform, but I don’t know that this goes deep enough,” said Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Matthews, speaking on the House floor.
“What goes on a lot of times in my district is that somebody gets in trouble, they pay a percentage to the bail company, they charge them a really high interest rate, 30% interest, every week they don’t pay it, they come get them, handcuff them to the desk and call their mamma to get you some more money. We’ve got a lot of issues with some bail bondsmen.”
Bail bondsmen across the state have remained fiercely opposed to England’s bill, and have spoken out against it a number of times as it made its way through various committees. Chris McNeil, president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association and owner of Outlaw Bail Bonds in Mobile, has said the bill could financially hurt their industry.
“Just like any other business, if you’re losing a customer base it affects a business, no matter what type of business it is,” McNeil previously told ADN.
Representatives for ABBA have also argued that HB42 could pose a public safety risk by increasing failure-to-appear rates, however, several studies have found negligible or no impact on failure-to-appear rates even in cases where cash bail is eliminated entirely. Illinois saw its recidivism and jail population decrease after eliminating cash bail.
England said bail bondsmen in Alabama hold more authority than judges do when it comes to cash bail, something that exacerbated what England called the industry’s unethical practices.
“There are bonding companies in the state of Alabama that will take partial payments on the percentage that they’re allowed to take, so they’re essentially lowering the bond of cases of just about anybody that goes to a bondsman,” England said. “They actually have authority now that judges don’t have.”
In agreement, Ingram championed England’s efforts, but asked if he would be willing to collaborate in the future on further regulating the bail bondsmen industry.
“It’s a small step, but it is a step in the right direction,” Ingram said. “We’ve done so much for title pawns, payday loans, but there is no oversight and no reform on this, so let’s work together on something to take it to the next step.”
The bill ultimately passed with a vote of 66-32, and now heads to a Senate committee. On its prospects for success this year, England told ADN he was hopeful, and that he was also “100%” open to working with Ingram in the future on further regulating the industry.