Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
Jan. 16, 2018
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for SB40 - Committee on Judiciary

Short Title

Creating a statutory procedure for an arrest without a warrant for a violation of an appearance bond condition.

Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 1, 2017

Jason briefed the committee on SB 40 saying it creates a statutory procedure for an arrest without a warrant for a violation of the conditions of an appearance bond.  He went on to explain that the bill authorizes the pretrial services supervision officer to arrest a person without a warrant, or deputize another officer to make an arrest for violating conditions of bond.


Jason Watkins on behalf of Jay Holmes shared support (Attachment 1) for SB 40 saying that this is being introduced for public safety and efficiency issues.  He went on to explain that this bill allows court and pretrial officers to place a detainer on a person when they are in the county jail so they can face a judge for revocation on the following workday.

During the question and answer period, the fiscal note was referenced, asking Mr. Watkins if the county would bear the cost of this bill. He explained that this actually will reduce the cost for the county.  Other issues that were addressed included power of the pretrial officers and establishing criminal levels in the conditions of the bond for assurance purposes.


Jessica Glendening (Attachment 2) said that her organization oppose SB 40 because this bill eliminates the judge from the bond revocation process and allows the pretrial officer to revoke bonds. She said a judge currently reviews a motion for a bond to be revoked, however, this bill has no protections for an individual who is simply accused of violating bonds.  Ms. Glendening further explained that a pretrial supervision officer only has to state that bond has been violated and thereby can arrest an individual. She concluded by saying this bill is an unnecessary change.

During the question and answer period, the written testimony provided by Shane Rolf (Attachment 3) was referenced.  Jason Watkins was asked about the alternative language provided by Mr. Rolf. Mr. Watkins replied that he would take the testimony back to Sedgwick County people, review the testimony, and he could then report back to the members with their thoughts on the proposed language. Chairperson Lynn then closed the hearing on the bill.