Need Help Getting a Loved One Out of Jail? Learn How Bail Can Secure Their Release

Posted by tylerdperez on April 12, 2025 with 0 Comment

If your loved one is facing arrest, bail can be a key factor in helping them secure release from jail while awaiting their trial. The process involves setting bail, which is often determined by factors like the severity of the charges and their criminal history. You have options for paying bail, including cash bail, bail bonds, or property bonds. If your loved one can’t afford bail, there are still options like requesting a reduction or securing a bail bond to help them get out quickly.

Key Takeaways

Bail ensures release: It’s a financial guarantee that your loved one will attend court hearings, and it’s refunded if they attend all required dates.
Bail options include cash, bonds, or property. If your loved one can’t afford the full bail, a bail bondsman can help, or you may use property as collateral.
Attorneys can help reduce bail: Working with a skilled attorney can improve the chances of getting a reduction in bail or securing release.

If your loved one has been arrested and is currently behind bars, you’re probably asking, “How do I get them out of jail?” The answer often lies in something called bail. Understanding how bail works and what options are available can make a stressful situation more manageable. Here’s a breakdown of the process explained in simple terms.

What is Bail?

Bail is essentially a financial arrangement that lets your loved one get out of jail while they wait for their trial or court hearings. The goal is to ensure they show up to all required court dates. If they attend all hearings, the bail is refunded. However, if they miss a court date, the bail is forfeited, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.

After their arrest, the court sets a bail amount based on factors like the severity of the alleged crime, their criminal history, whether they are considered a flight risk, and their ties to the community. In some cases, your loved one may not need to pay bail at all. This is called release on their own recognizance (OR).

The Bail Process in California

While the bail process can seem overwhelming, it can be broken down into manageable steps. Here’s how it typically works:

Arrest and Booking

After your loved one is arrested, they’ll be taken to a local facility for booking. Their personal information will be collected, their fingerprints will be taken, and the charges against them will be formally recorded. Depending on the charges, bail may be set right away, or they may have to wait for a bail hearing.
Bail Hearing

If there’s a bail hearing, a judge will determine whether your loved one can be released on bail and how much it will be. The judge will consider factors such as the nature of the crime, their criminal record, and whether they’re a flight risk or a danger to the community. For serious charges like murder, the judge may deny bail or set an extremely high amount.
Setting Bail

Once bail is granted, the judge will assign a specific amount that must be paid for your loved one to be released. Bail amounts can range from a few hundred dollars for minor offenses to thousands (or even millions) for serious crimes.

Types of Bail

There are several ways you can help pay your loved one’s bail. Here are the most common options:

Cash Bail

Cash bail means you pay the full amount in cash. If they attend all court appearances, you get the full amount back. But if they miss a hearing, the bail is forfeited, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest. While simple, coming up with the full amount can be difficult for many families.
Bail Bonds

If your loved one can’t afford the full bail amount, you might consider a bail bond. A bail bondsman will pay the bail in exchange for a non-refundable fee, usually 10% of the total amount. For example, if the bail is $10,000, you’ll pay the bondsman $1,000, and they’ll take care of the rest. If your loved one skips court, the bondsman will be responsible for paying the full bail.
Property Bond

In some cases, you can post bail using property as collateral, such as real estate or valuable assets. If your loved one doesn’t attend their court hearing, the court can seize the property to cover the bail.
Release on Own Recognizance (OR)

Sometimes, the judge may decide your loved one doesn’t need to post any bail at all. This is called release on their own recognizance (OR). If granted, they don’t have to pay anything upfront but must promise to attend all court hearings. OR is more likely if they have no criminal history or the charges are minor.

What Happens If Your Loved One Can’t Afford Bail?

If your loved one can’t afford the full bail amount, there are still options to help secure their release.

One option is to seek a bail reduction. Their attorney can request the judge to lower the bail by presenting factors like your loved one’s ties to the community, a clean record, or the nature of the charges. If the judge agrees, they may reduce the bail to an amount that’s more manageable.

Alternatively, as mentioned earlier, you can work with a bondsman, who typically requires just a 10% fee of the bail amount, allowing you to pay a fraction of the full bail to secure your loved one’s release while the rest is handled by the bondsman.

How to Increase Your Loved One’s Chances of Getting Released from Jail

While there’s no guarantee, there are steps you can take to increase their chances of getting out of jail:

Work with an experienced attorney

A skilled criminal defense attorney can help argue for a lower bail or even release on your loved one’s own recognizance. They know the system and can ensure your loved one is treated fairly during their bail hearing.
Provide evidence of ties to the community

Showing that your loved one has strong connections to their community, like a stable job, family, or property, can help the judge see them as less of a flight risk. The more reasons they have to stay in the area, the better the chances of release.
Show no prior criminal history

If this is their first offense or they don’t have a criminal record, it can work in their favor. Defendants with clean records are often granted bail more easily.
Cooperate with authorities

Being respectful and cooperative with law enforcement can improve how your loved one is perceived in court. Staying calm, following instructions, and avoiding any aggressive behavior during booking can help.

What Happens After Bail is Posted?

Once bail is posted, your loved one will be released from jail, but they must attend all their court hearings. If they miss any, a warrant will be issued for their arrest, and the bail will be lost.

While out on bail, your loved one must comply with any conditions the court sets, such as staying away from certain people or checking in with a probation officer. Violating these conditions could lead to more legal issues and potentially getting taken back into custody.

Facing a Bail Situation? Get the Help You Need

The bail process can be tough to navigate, but with the right guidance, you can handle it confidently. If your loved one is facing arrest or criminal charges, working with a knowledgeable attorney can make a huge difference in securing the best possible outcome.

The Law Offices of Earl Carter & Associates have been helping Riverside County residents for over 50 years. With extensive experience in local courts and a commitment to providing personal, effective legal representation, we’re here to guide you through the bail process and beyond.

If you need help with a loved one’s criminal case or the bail process, reach out to us today for a free case evaluation. We’ll be with you and them every step of the way!

We work all angles to receive the best deal

Posted by tylerdperez on November 16, 2015 with 0 Comment

For purposes of a state constitutional speedy trial analysis, no presumption of prejudice arises from the delay after the filing of the complaint and before an arrest or formal accusation by indictment or information; rather, the defendant seeking dismissal must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. However, when the issue of a violation of a statutory time limit arises before trial, prejudice will be presumed unless the prosecution successfully meets its burden of showing good cause for delay. Similarly, because statutes of limitation reflect a legislative construction of the speedy trial guarantee, courts may appropriately conclude that delays between the filing of a complaint and the arrest of a defendant which exceed the period of limitation applicable to the charged offense are unreasonable and thus presumptively prejudicial. Thus, delays that are uncommonly long may trigger a presumption of prejudice.

It is of utmost importance the attorney working on a matter examines the necessary time periods of arrest, filing, and indictment. At Earl Carter and Associates, we work all the angles to either receive the best deal possible or have the case dismissed. In one of our cases, our client was finally brought in on a 10 year-old warrant. At the arraignment, an oral Serna motion was more than sufficient for the magistrate to dismiss the matter, a drug possession and sales case. It is even more important to note that if the matter of speedy trial is not raised, it is therefore waived. The professionals at Earl Carter and Associates handles business similar to this every day so you do not have to, and it has greatly benefited several of our clients.

What is a Hung Jury?

Posted by Earl Carter on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

I recently conducted a jury trial in San Jose that resulted in a hung jury. It was a DUI case where the client was alleged to have a .18 BAC.

You might have heard this term on television shows or even the news. Sometimes at the conclusion of a jury trial, if the jury cannot unanimously reach a verdict, the court will declare a mistrial. When this happens, the judge will bring the jury in to the court, and typically poll them individually, or ask each juror that a verdict cannot be reached. The judge will also typically ask which way the split is, meaning how many have voted for guilt.

If, after the judge speaks to the jury, the court determines that they are at an impasse, the judge must declare a mistrial. The Penal Code of California requires this in sections 1140 and 1141. The judge will typically ask the jurors to speak with the attorneys only if they wish to. In my case, the jurors did speak to both the District Attorney and myself, which provided valuable insight.

After a mistrial has been declared, there are a few options for what happens next. If the District Attorney wants to, they can insist on trying the case again. However, because their case has been shown to have at least some weaknesses, they often are willing to reduce the charges or offer a resolution that is better than before the case was set for trial. The court may also entertain a motion to dismiss the case. Finally, if the parties cannot reach a decision, the case may be retried again.

In my case, it is unclear whether or not the case will have to be retried. If it is, I now know what the District Attorney’s theories of the case are, and can be even more prepared to fight.

We Will Continue to Represent Your Interests Even if You Pass Away Before Your Matter is Resolved

Posted by Earl Carter on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

Pending a recent appeal I have for the office, my client had an unfortunate motorcycle accident and passed away as a result of it. Normally, a criminal client’s death while his appeal is pending would terminate the proceedings and lead to an automatic vacating of the judgment of conviction. The case would then go back to the trial court so it could be dismissed. It is an otherwise good result for us, but for the circumstances that created it.

However, in my case, there is a good point of criminal law that my client and I really wished to have decided and published. Fortunately, I have the opportunity to see that the court may still choose to rule on our issue even though my client passed away. See, e.g. In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 879. I am pleased to pursue the issue and continue my client’s fight. In either event, the results should be the same resulting in the ultimate dismissal of my client’s case. It is just unfortunate he will not be able to enjoy it with me in person.

Even California’s Implied Consent Laws May Not Save Otherwise Non-Consensual Blood Draws

Posted by Earl Carter on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

In the ever changing landscape of our Driving Under the Influence defense practice, we have the opportunity to forge some currently unsettled area of the law regarding how California’s Implied Consent Laws impact a client’s blood draw during a DUI investigation. In a current case I am handling, the issue is whether, in the absence of express consent, implied consent laws can be successfully utilized by the District Attorney to save an otherwise non-consensual blood draw from the client?

By way of some legal background, in the Supreme Court case Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696, a Missouri police officer stopped McNeely and determined he was intoxicated. McNeely declined to use a portable breath-test device to measure his blood alcohol concentration. The officer subsequently placed McNeely under arrest. When McNeely indicated that he would refuse to provide a breath sample, the officer took McNeely to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer did not attempt to secure a warrant. At the hospital, the officer asked McNeely whether he would consent to a blood test. Reading from a standard implied consent form, the officer explained to McNeely that refusal to submit voluntarily to the test would lead to the immediate revocation of his driver’s license for one year and could be used against him in a future prosecution. McNeely refused. The officer then directed a hospital lab technician to take a blood sample. McNeely was charged with driving while intoxicated. McNeely argued that the results of the blood test had to be suppressed arguing that under the totality of the circumstances, taking his blood for chemical testing without a search warrant violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The McNeely trial court agreed. It concluded that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because there were no circumstances suggesting the officer faced an emergency in which he could not practicably obtain a warrant. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, recognizing that Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U. S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 “provide[d] the backdrop” to its analysis. The Missouri Supreme Court held that Schmerber directed courts to engage in a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether exigency permits a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw. The court further concluded that Schmerber “requires more than the mere dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence to support a warrantless blood draw in an alcohol-related case.” Finding that this was “unquestionably a routine DWI case” in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person. The United States Supreme Court affirmed and found that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not establish a per se exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement.

Such newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply “retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception.” Davis v. United States (2011) 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2430, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285. A decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare decisis, applies in all cases not yet final. As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity. People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399, 208 Cal.Rptr. 162, 690 P.2d 635. In Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S. Ct. 708, 716, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, “a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases.” The justices in Davis, supra, would agree that the McNeely rule applies retroactively and may be invoked “[b]ecause Davis’s conviction had not become final when Gant was announced, Gant applies retroactively in this case, and Davis may invoke its newly announced rule as a basis for seeking relief. See Griffith v. Kentucky 479 U.S. 314, 326, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649.” Davis v. United States (2011) 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2422, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285. As a result, individuals charged with driving under the influence who had blood drawn in the absence of their consent, without a warrant and whose cases are/were pending and not yet final on April 17, 2013, are governed by the holding set forth in Missouri v. McNeely.

With the above as some legal background, the issue I am involved with turns to California’s implied consent laws. Implied consent laws are used to establish that by accepting a driver’s license, a driver in California agrees to submit to a chemical test if detained on suspicion of drunk-driving. The United States Supreme Court decision in McNeely does not invalidate existing implied consent laws. The seizure in McNeely was expressly non-consensual. McNeely simply requires that if a person revokes their “implied” consent, a warrant must be obtained. No California court has expressly considered whether a blood draw taken pursuant to the implied consent law is justifiable under the Fourth Amendment as a consent search. The constitutional attacks on such implied consent laws simply cite and rely on the Schmerber decision discussed above. In fact, it has been noted that California’s implied consent law “is an adjunct to” Schmerber. Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753 at 760. The reading of such cases suggests that any chemical test taken cooperatively pursuant to the implied consent law would have also been constitutionally permissible as a forced test had the person refused to cooperate.

However, the issue for me then is this: Is it constitutionally permissible to allow a blood draw under California’s implied consent statutes with warrantless non-exigent circumstances if the draw violates the Fourth Amendment if done forcibly? A blood draw under California’s implied consent statutes and one analyzed under Schmerber and McNeely are different. See McNeely, supra, 133 S.Ct. at 1566; South Dakota v. Neville (1983) 459 U.S. 553, 559-60. See also United States v. Chapel (9th Cir. 1995) 55 F.Jd. 1416, 1419-20. With any Fourth Amendment consent, express or implied, consent still must be free and voluntary, rather than coerced or given in submission to authority. People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 163; People v. Challoner (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 779, 781. I would recognize that by choosing to drive on highways, drivers are subject to the regulations of implied consent laws. See Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121, 1125, 1139. However, California’s implied consent for Fourth Amendment purposes must still be free and voluntary considered under a totality of the circumstances analysis. As an example, there are penalties leveled against drivers for refusals to cooperate with such testing upon arrest which would render such perceived implied consent illusory. See California Vehicle Code §§13353 [loss of driving privilege consequences for refusal] and 23577 [enhanced criminal consequences for being convicted of driving under the influence]. See also California Vehicle Code §§23612. It is presumed by law that a drivers is aware of these punishments. Murphy v. Clayton (1896 113 Cal. 153, 161; People v. Munroe (1893) 100 Cal. 664, 670; Bank One Texas v. Pollack (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 973, 981. Although not completely dispositive on the issue of consent, the consequences taken in connection with other factors can still render implied consent involuntary. There is no per se exception to consent to trump Fourth Amendment protections simply because a statutory scheme was adhered to. Outside factors can still be considered and utilized in the Court’s analysis in determining the voluntariness of the consent under the totality of the circumstances. This would be consistent with analysis in McNeely and Schmerber. To analyze otherwise would lead to the inevitable conclusion that a driver arrested for driving under the influence would be subject to forcible blood draws in every circumstance under implied consent, disregarding any Fourth Amendment violations, however egregious. Even McNeely notes that the intent is not to do so, suggesting a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test under an implied consent law operates as a withdrawal of consent and renders any subsequent test non-consensual. McNeely, supra, 133 S.Ct. at p. 1566. Accordingly, the voluntariness of the consent would follow under a totality of the circumstances analysis that would include the implications and a driver’s understandings of California’ implied consent laws. Thus a driver who does not voluntarily and consensually cooperate with a chemical test pursuant to the implied consent law because of duress or coercion has not rendered consent, and a warrant would be required. Under a totality of the circumstances, ostensible adherence to the requirements of California’s implied consent statutes would not render a blood draw per se constitutionally proper if other factors outside the statutes would compromise the voluntariness of the consent. Conversely, neither is an officer’s failure to comply with the implied consent law an automatic violation of an arrestee’s constitutional rights. Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 107, 118. Again, a totality of the circumstances analysis is needed. As I argued, any reliance on implied consent to save an involved warrantless search can still be constitutionally defective. Stay tuned as the issue moves forward and I will provide more through the appeal process.

Tattoos can be problematic for Criminal Defense Attorneys and Defendants at trial

Posted by Earl Carter on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

This news article was published this week highlighting a man going to trial on Murder charges who had the mirrored word “MURDER” tattooed on his neck. Wisely, the defendant was concerned that his tattoo might prejudice the jury against him.

The constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal matters is one of the great protections of the U.S. Constitution. It provides that you will be judged by a jury of your peers. However, the reality is that while jury members are instructed to try to consider only the evidence presented at trial, Jurors are humans, and they are prone, like all of us, to be bias and prejudiced by things that they do not understand. For example, a juror who is not in to tattoo may be prone to being judgmental towards others with tattoos, especially one so shocking as this one.

When defendants go to trial, they are usually allowed to get out of the jail jumpsuits that they normally wear, and put on a nice suit, so as not to look like a criminal defendant, and too not unfairly prejudice the jury. This is because, Jurors are susceptible to jump to conclusions based on appearances.

The courtroom can be a highly emotional place

Posted by tylerdperez on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

The courtroom can be a highly emotional place, as demonstrated by this video filmed in a Michigan criminal court. Admittedly, criminal cases involve all sorts of facts, some of which can illicit extreme emotional responses from those involved. This includes judges, District Attorneys, Public Defenders, private criminal defense attorneys and defendants. Understanding this fact, and understanding that emotions in a courtroom can have an impact on justice and on people’s lives, it is critical that if you have a criminal case you are protected from infringements on your freedom due to one party being overly emotional.

For example, I have represented many clients whose case is being handled by a district attorney who seems to have an emotional reaction to the type of crime being accused. Recently I handled an animal cruelty case which was being prosecuted by an assistant district attorney who seemed very emotionally reactive to the case. After working with this district attorney, it quickly became apparent that she was a true animal lover, and consequently this caused her to despise my client and want to impose a punishment that, in my view, was far too harsh under the circumstances.

A skilled criminal defense lawyer is so valuable to you when you are facing criminal charges, as they can identify people and circumstances that seem to trigger extreme emotional response, and make sure that these do not impede your ability to be dealt with justly.

Facebook Post Lands this Woman in Jail

Posted by Earl Carter on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

Social Media has been landing people in jail more and more frequently, Colleen Cudney, 22, is learning this first hand.

Cudney is on probation from a 2012 DUI conviction, and as part of her probation she is restricted from having any alcohol & is subject to random alcohol testing. According to a Michigan news channel, she was called in for a random alcohol test the day after St. Patricks Day. Here is what she posted on Facebook: “Buzz killer for me, I had to breathalyze this morning and I drank yesterday but I passed thank god lol.”.

She allegedly posted that in a status update that was eventually brought to the attention of law enforcement. After bragging about passing the test, when she clearly should have failed. Cudney was called in for another test—but reportedly hung up.

Cudney is now due in court for this coming tuesday and may face up to 93 days in jail. I’m speculating when I say, she is avoiding A Urine test which can detect alcohol for up to 80 hours before screening.   Once again, please be mindful of how you use social media.

However if you do get in a situation similar to this, don’t be afraid to contact us for some free advice by filling the form to the right or calling us directly at (800) 500-5342.

Validity of DUI Checkpoints in CA and how to get out of them

Posted by Earl Carter on August 20, 2015 with 0 Comment

Driving Under the influence is one of the most committed crimes in the state of California. Checkpoints are an easy way for law enforcement to, “shoot fish in a barrel.” It is very easy for officers to maintain an arrest from a DUI at a checkpoint because they are legal in the state of California. But, you may now know that DUI checkpoints are illegal in 12 other states. The California Supreme Court upheld a decision of the lower court that found that sobriety checks are constitutional. In the landmark California Supreme Court case: Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987), the Supreme Court established several requirements that police officers must adhere to, so that the stop is valid and does not violate your constitutional rights.

At a DUI checkpoints officers evaluate your sobriety within a brief period. They are looking for objective symptoms of intoxication: bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, or even alcohol odor. If even one symptom is readily available “bloodshot/watery eyes” the police officer is entitled to pull you over for subsequent DUI investigation. If there are no symptoms present, they must release you from the minor detainment.

There are certain requirements for a DUI checkpoint to be legal and enforceable in a court of law: Needs to be published in advance of the checkpoint, time and circumstances of detention, location, and a supervising officer needs to be present at the scene. We should examine each in detail:

1) Need to publish in advance of the checkpoint: this requirement is a integral to lower the interference of the DUI checkpoint and boost its prevention in reducing DUI cases.

2) Time and circumstances of detention: this requirement is in place in order to limit the time that the DUI is invasive in your life. Law enforcement is only allowed to detain you for the time necessary to look for objective symptoms of intoxication, then need to let you be on your way.

3) Location: this requirement is due to a number of factors including: safety of the public, proper and adequate lighting, appropriate number of cars in proportion to the stop, officers have to be in uniform, and high DUI needs to be proven in that specific vicinity.

4) Supervising Officer needs to be present: this requirement is in place to protect citizens from improper selection of cars. Supervising officer has full control over the DUI Checkpoint including but not limited to time, location and which cars to stop for example the supervisor can select every 5th car or every 10th car. They cannot select you based upon what you look like or what type of car you are driving at the time.

All of this being said you might still have the question,” How do I get out of a DUI checkpoint” and that brings me to my last requirement #5.

5) A motorist has to have ample opportunity to leave the DUI checkpoint if they do not wish to stop: Most people do not know this but you do not have to stop at a DUI checkpoint. Further, you may not be stopped and briefly detained just because you simply tried to steer clear of the checkpoint. It is also required that officers post visible lighted signs that a checkpoint is coming up soon. Finally, there needs to be a legal place to turn out or around to go a different way.

But, if you commit some sort of vehicle code violation, for example: an illegal u-turn, then there is probable cause that a traffic offense occurred in the presence of an officer and they can get you to the side of the road legally.

BOTTOM LINE: Avoid DUI checkpoints at all costs because you can do it legally without committing a vehicle code violation in the presence of an officer. that is how you can get out of a DUI checkpoint.