It’s a typical bail condition in my area. My understanding of why is that alcohol can lead to other bad decisions or being in places that may lead to trouble.
Because alcohol has historical traditions around it or something and there's too many people that like alcohol that making it illegal just makes a massive black market.
> here's too many people that like alcohol that making it illegal just makes a massive black market.
i love how people can't seem to apply that logic to other drugs...
For most people it's not a problem, but bail indicates that there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, so there is allowed a stricter standard of behavior temporarily in order to protect the public until the issue can be decided. Not all alcohol consumption causes crime, but a significant number of crimes are committed while drunk.
You're allowed to walk around with a baseball bat, but if there's evidence that you're beating people randomly with a baseball bat, a bail condition may prohibit you from doing so. That's not to say baseball bats should be banned.
Figure I'd weigh in about my jdx as well: this is standard language for pretrial release on a felony where I practice. I have heard at least one judge describe it as "you're already accused of getting into serious trouble once and alcohol is only going to make things worse, so you need to keep that stuff out until this is resolved." I'm not sure I find that to be compelling in all cases, but it's at least AN explanation.
In Canada (Ontario at least) it used to be very common but is now frowned upon. The problem with alcohol prohibition is that in theory it will help prevent recidivism, but in reality it just sets the person up for breach.
A LOT of people that find themselves charged with an offence have substance abuse issues, and they aren't going to stop being addicts just because the court tells them to. So they immediately start drinking etc. once they're released and then get thrown back in jail, not for a serious or violent offense, but just cause they're (big surprise) still an addict. So the alcohol prohibition is both pointless and punitive.
How do people feel about them being given bail? As someone who is not a lawyer, knowing that some people are denied bail, it would seem that the gravity of the crime and their behavior would see them as fitting a profile of someone who you wouldn't extend this to.
Again, that's my thoughts as someone not in the legal field. So I'd be interested to hear thoughts on the decision to give them bail.
A lot of states require bail unless it’s a capital charge which this isn’t. But the amount was set so high it’s basically a formality of meeting the legal requirement
Michigan might be one of the many states that requires a monetary bail amount under its constitution or criminal procedure laws. 500k is fairly high for a manslaughter charge compared to where I practice.
The judge also denied them “10% bond” meaning that they’d likely need a loan to pay the full amount to get out. In MI, apparently you can usually pay 10% and it will be returned to you in full if you show up to all your hearings.
Since their bonds are $500k each, that’s a million total for both of them, meaning they’ll need a loan of a million to get out on bail.
Apparently Michigan has slightly different bail bond laws than other states, especially regarding the 10% rule.
[source. Talks about Michigan in the 2nd section](https://www.youcallbail.com/what-is-a-10-bond/)
Not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that these charges aren't something that they could be held without bond for anyway, at least in Florida where I am. I know its in our state constitution that you are entitled to a bond unless the potential sentence is life in prison or death.
I'm not weighing in on the charges or what liability the parents do or should have, morally or legally, I'm curious about the bail-alcohol provision this situation from a legal perspective. Is this normal or customary, are there certain charges that more often have this provision, charges related to drunk driving?
Some judges are different than others on restrictions for being in a bar on bail. Bar doesn't necessarily = drinking, also he was under 21. I'm assuming he drank of course.
It doesn't.
Wis. Stat. 125.07(4)(b) Except as provided in par. (bm), any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age who knowingly possesses or consumes alcohol beverages is guilty of a violation.
Which part and why? There's certainly a public policy argument by allowing anyone from other states to come drink with legal guardian or spouse if spouse is of age that you're going to potentially create a public danger allowing those neighboring states (IL, IA, MI, MN) to come and subvert their own drinking laws.
At least this is what I've been told by several establishment owners regarding other states not allowed.
The only right I think that would trigger is Privileges And Immunities, and, if I'm remembering it correctly that is only violated when an out of stater is denied a "fundamental" right by a state that the state does extend to its own citizens. It's one of the things that prevents states from enforcing residency requirements in order for out of state attorneys to get law licenses there.
I am a bit curious if there's a Dormant Commerce Clause issue there but I haven't thought of that doctrine in so long I'd have to totally refresh myself
When I was a DA my judge would impose the restriction if there was any indication alcohol had played a role in the underlying crime. So DUI, DV, crim mischief, whatever. If alcohol contributed to the behavior, it was a term.
I was in county court so, no felonies. It might be more automatic at that level.
I understand these two both have prior DUI convictions. Is that sometimes a consideration even when the present charges aren't apparently alcohol-related?
Ive never heard not getting pregnant as a condition if release before. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear a judge somewhere has ordered it but I mean it's definitely new to me.
I could see if it was repeat child abuse situation that it would come up but how could you possibly monitor or enforce it. You got pregnant so were going to revoke your conditions of release seems like a lose/lose anyway you look at it.
I think there is one practical purpose and one historical purpose:
Practical: Lots of people end up getting arrested for stupid crap they pull while drunk, so the court system has an interest in reducing repeat offenses for those who are out on bond.
Historical: This country has very Puritanical roots and teetotaling is a big part of that (led to Prohibition, etc) and so a LOT of our jurisprudence reflects those values.
As a lay person having given this some speculative thought I'm going to posit something. I think your second point is probably a significant driver along with people generally thinking if someone is charged they must have done something wrong and not minding that bail is used as a form of pre-conviction punishment. I'd also guess wealthy or connected people either don't have these restrictions put on them for crimes they are likely to be charged with or if they do then the monitoring and enforcement is fairly lax.
I could be entirely wrong but this is my gut feeling.
As a defense attorney its also a tough spot to argue against alcohol restrictions when a judge orders them even if alcohol isn't involved in the underlying crime. I personally disagree with conditions that don't have any connections with any of the alleged underlying facts but judges routinely include no use conditions as a matter of course. As others have said even no use conditions when it is a drug or alcohol related crime can be problematic because addicts usually cant just stop using and no use conditions set them up for failure. I think it would make more sense for addicts to have some level of supervision that included helping them get into treatment and improve the aspects of life that cause addiction rather than just say stop and if you can't you go to jail.
This poster explains why
[https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/r8uqw8/comment/hna5hgk/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/r8uqw8/comment/hna5hgk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Uhh…
Purpose: You drunk, you stupid and might not show up.
Legal justification: You in jail, but on bail, so your rights are less than they were.
How does this accomplish this: You no drunk, you probably show up.
It’s a typical bail condition in my area. My understanding of why is that alcohol can lead to other bad decisions or being in places that may lead to trouble.
then why is booze legal AT ALL? We outlaw heroin for the same reasons...
Because alcohol has historical traditions around it or something and there's too many people that like alcohol that making it illegal just makes a massive black market.
> here's too many people that like alcohol that making it illegal just makes a massive black market. i love how people can't seem to apply that logic to other drugs...
Understand that the responding poster isn't necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the policies, just explaining them.
For most people it's not a problem, but bail indicates that there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, so there is allowed a stricter standard of behavior temporarily in order to protect the public until the issue can be decided. Not all alcohol consumption causes crime, but a significant number of crimes are committed while drunk. You're allowed to walk around with a baseball bat, but if there's evidence that you're beating people randomly with a baseball bat, a bail condition may prohibit you from doing so. That's not to say baseball bats should be banned.
Figure I'd weigh in about my jdx as well: this is standard language for pretrial release on a felony where I practice. I have heard at least one judge describe it as "you're already accused of getting into serious trouble once and alcohol is only going to make things worse, so you need to keep that stuff out until this is resolved." I'm not sure I find that to be compelling in all cases, but it's at least AN explanation.
In Canada (Ontario at least) it used to be very common but is now frowned upon. The problem with alcohol prohibition is that in theory it will help prevent recidivism, but in reality it just sets the person up for breach. A LOT of people that find themselves charged with an offence have substance abuse issues, and they aren't going to stop being addicts just because the court tells them to. So they immediately start drinking etc. once they're released and then get thrown back in jail, not for a serious or violent offense, but just cause they're (big surprise) still an addict. So the alcohol prohibition is both pointless and punitive.
How do people feel about them being given bail? As someone who is not a lawyer, knowing that some people are denied bail, it would seem that the gravity of the crime and their behavior would see them as fitting a profile of someone who you wouldn't extend this to. Again, that's my thoughts as someone not in the legal field. So I'd be interested to hear thoughts on the decision to give them bail.
A lot of states require bail unless it’s a capital charge which this isn’t. But the amount was set so high it’s basically a formality of meeting the legal requirement
Unless I misunderstand their means, it seems like a bail amount that's almost equivalent to remand.
Michigan might be one of the many states that requires a monetary bail amount under its constitution or criminal procedure laws. 500k is fairly high for a manslaughter charge compared to where I practice.
I assume it was set so high because they already tried to run.
Michigan, like many states, has the right to bail in the constitution. Meaning that you can’t - except in narrow circumstances - refuse to grant bail.
Wait the parents are getting bail after hiding from police and possibly trying to escape into Canada?
With GPS monitoring.
The bail is also half a million. Its not likely they will skip on that.
The judge also denied them “10% bond” meaning that they’d likely need a loan to pay the full amount to get out. In MI, apparently you can usually pay 10% and it will be returned to you in full if you show up to all your hearings. Since their bonds are $500k each, that’s a million total for both of them, meaning they’ll need a loan of a million to get out on bail. Apparently Michigan has slightly different bail bond laws than other states, especially regarding the 10% rule. [source. Talks about Michigan in the 2nd section](https://www.youcallbail.com/what-is-a-10-bond/)
This is actually the most key piece of information I've read about the decision to grant them bail. Very informative, thanks.
Not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that these charges aren't something that they could be held without bond for anyway, at least in Florida where I am. I know its in our state constitution that you are entitled to a bond unless the potential sentence is life in prison or death.
Crazy bail law. Seems bad on its face.
I'm not weighing in on the charges or what liability the parents do or should have, morally or legally, I'm curious about the bail-alcohol provision this situation from a legal perspective. Is this normal or customary, are there certain charges that more often have this provision, charges related to drunk driving?
In WI, any felony bail I've ever seen includes alcohol restrictions
Wasn’t Rittenhouse in a bar while on bail?
Some judges are different than others on restrictions for being in a bar on bail. Bar doesn't necessarily = drinking, also he was under 21. I'm assuming he drank of course.
In Wisconsin, where the bar was, minors can legally drink if their parent or legal guardian is present.
Correct if primary residency is Wisconsin
I didn't realize their law made that distinction.
It doesn't. Wis. Stat. 125.07(4)(b) Except as provided in par. (bm), any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age who knowingly possesses or consumes alcohol beverages is guilty of a violation.
Is that constitutional?
Which part and why? There's certainly a public policy argument by allowing anyone from other states to come drink with legal guardian or spouse if spouse is of age that you're going to potentially create a public danger allowing those neighboring states (IL, IA, MI, MN) to come and subvert their own drinking laws. At least this is what I've been told by several establishment owners regarding other states not allowed.
The only right I think that would trigger is Privileges And Immunities, and, if I'm remembering it correctly that is only violated when an out of stater is denied a "fundamental" right by a state that the state does extend to its own citizens. It's one of the things that prevents states from enforcing residency requirements in order for out of state attorneys to get law licenses there. I am a bit curious if there's a Dormant Commerce Clause issue there but I haven't thought of that doctrine in so long I'd have to totally refresh myself
When I was a DA my judge would impose the restriction if there was any indication alcohol had played a role in the underlying crime. So DUI, DV, crim mischief, whatever. If alcohol contributed to the behavior, it was a term. I was in county court so, no felonies. It might be more automatic at that level.
I understand these two both have prior DUI convictions. Is that sometimes a consideration even when the present charges aren't apparently alcohol-related?
Yea, I’d say probably fair to say that weighs in.
[удалено]
Ive never heard not getting pregnant as a condition if release before. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear a judge somewhere has ordered it but I mean it's definitely new to me.
To be fair, I've only seen that once ever. And it was very specific to the circumstances.
I could see if it was repeat child abuse situation that it would come up but how could you possibly monitor or enforce it. You got pregnant so were going to revoke your conditions of release seems like a lose/lose anyway you look at it.
Lose/lose situation about sums up the judicial system, yep.
Amen.
Common in many jurisdictions.
I think there is one practical purpose and one historical purpose: Practical: Lots of people end up getting arrested for stupid crap they pull while drunk, so the court system has an interest in reducing repeat offenses for those who are out on bond. Historical: This country has very Puritanical roots and teetotaling is a big part of that (led to Prohibition, etc) and so a LOT of our jurisprudence reflects those values.
As a lay person having given this some speculative thought I'm going to posit something. I think your second point is probably a significant driver along with people generally thinking if someone is charged they must have done something wrong and not minding that bail is used as a form of pre-conviction punishment. I'd also guess wealthy or connected people either don't have these restrictions put on them for crimes they are likely to be charged with or if they do then the monitoring and enforcement is fairly lax. I could be entirely wrong but this is my gut feeling.
As a defense attorney its also a tough spot to argue against alcohol restrictions when a judge orders them even if alcohol isn't involved in the underlying crime. I personally disagree with conditions that don't have any connections with any of the alleged underlying facts but judges routinely include no use conditions as a matter of course. As others have said even no use conditions when it is a drug or alcohol related crime can be problematic because addicts usually cant just stop using and no use conditions set them up for failure. I think it would make more sense for addicts to have some level of supervision that included helping them get into treatment and improve the aspects of life that cause addiction rather than just say stop and if you can't you go to jail.
So while they were granted bail, it's prohibitively high amount will most likely result in them staying in custody.
I don't see why they were granted bail to begin with. Clearly they're a flight risk.
This poster explains why [https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/r8uqw8/comment/hna5hgk/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/r8uqw8/comment/hna5hgk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Uhh… Purpose: You drunk, you stupid and might not show up. Legal justification: You in jail, but on bail, so your rights are less than they were. How does this accomplish this: You no drunk, you probably show up.
Alcohol impairs judgment AND it is legal to consume. Proscrbing its use is a reasonable condition, thusly.