Archive for Criminal Law


Sale and distribution of Marijuana

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Sale and distribution of Marijuana

Persons who have been charged with marijuana sales in the area of Phoenix can turn to the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson for assistance with their legal troubles. When you need the help of an experienced Phoenix marijuana sales attorney, you need someone who has the know-how of handling these kinds of cases. That’s where Mr. Davidson’s law office in Phoenix comes in handy. He can handle all many drug-related cases.

Cases that involve the sale and distribution of marijuana are treated harshly… much more so than the possession for sale in Arizona. Prosecutors try proving marijuana sales by employing the help of undercover police officers, search warrants, surveillance and confidential informants. Using his experience, he can effectively challenge this evidence and will do everything in his power to reduce or dismiss the charges.

How You Can Prove Entrapment

Anytime police engage in undercover activity to create a sale of marijuana case against somebody, defense attorneys can possibly use entrapment has a plausible defense. According to Arizona law, to use entrapment as a defense in marijuana sale cases, there are things that must be proven:

  1. The idea to commit the crime did not begin with the defendant but with the police.
  2. The defendant wasn’t inclined to sell marijuana before the police encouraged or coerced him/her to sell.
  3. Undercover officers encouraged and coerced the individual to sale marijuana.
Hiring The Help Of An Arizona Lawyer For Marijuana Sale and Distribution

If you’ve been charged with an illegal sale of medical marijuana or the Internet sale of illegal marijuana, the Law Officers of Joshua S. Davidson has the knowledge of how to handle the case. As a Maricopa County prosecutor, he was responsible for cases that involved narcotics and marijuana sales. Thanks to the time he spent working as a prosecutor, he can take the experience and use it to effectively defend his clients.

Since he became a Criminal Defnese Attorney, he took what he learned from prosecutors to prepare a defensive strategy that counters each of their moves. You should never try handling the marijuana sale and distribution charge on your own or with an attorney who’s not experienced in the area. With Joshua S. Davidson on your side, you can be sure he’ll be with you all the way to provide you with support and legal advice that can ensure the success of your case.

Talk to Phoenix Marijuana Defense Attorney Davidson today to learn what possible defenses you have to fight your marijuana sale and distribution charge.

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Sale and distribution of Marijuana

Marijuana Transportation Can Net Defendants Extreme Penalty Times and Fines

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Marijuana Transportation Can Net Defendants Extreme Penalty Times and Fines

Transportation of Marijuana in Arizona

Have you been accused with transporting illegal marijuana? If so, then you need to locate the best possible attorney for your case. This is where the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson in Phoenix comes in. Attorney Davidson represents all his clients to the best of his abilities to ensure they get the best outcome possible for their marijuana transportation charge.

Due to the federal and state laws, marijuana transportation charges can be extremely complex. It all depends on how and where the marijuana was transported. Should marijuana be transported intentionally or between states, the charge could become a felony offense and could include the following agencies:

  • DEA
  • FBI
  • Federal prosecutors

Because these charges are complicated and the numerous agencies that could get involved, you need the assistance and the support of a highly qualified Phoenix Marijuana Transportation Attorney.

The Charges and Penalties Of Marijuana Transportation

What does it mean by marijuana transportation? It means the movement or the transporting of an illegal substance from one area to another. The charge is extremely serious in the Phoenix region. Most of these cases involve some type of vehicle so that the marijuana is moved from one location to another location.  Just because you are in the same vehicle as the illegal substance does not determine your guilt. The prosecution must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you fully knew you were transporting the drugs.

Mr. Davidson is a former prosecutor who used to prosecute these types of cases. Thus, he knows the techniques police and prosecutors use to build their case against you. With this firsthand knowledge, Mr. Davidson is already one step ahead and can create an antagonistic defense for you.

Depending on how extensive the charges are against you and if you’re repeat offender, there are a number of penalties you could be hit with:

  • Probation
  • Revocation of driver’s license
  • Forfeiture of vehicle
  • Seriously large fines
  • Extensive long-term prison time

Most marijuana transportation involves a large sum of the drug, and if you’re convicted, it’s a long, mandatory prison sentence. Depending on the marijuana amount, the formal charges that are filed against you could net you serious jail time.  Do not let the transportation of marijuana conviction completely abolish your future.

You need the assistance of an experienced Phoenix marijuana defense attorney to protect you and your future.  With a reputation like Mr. Davidson’s, you can bet you’ll get the aggressive representation he is well-known for. He’ll throw everything of himself into your case to ensure you get the best possible outcome for the marijuana transportation charge.

Give Mr. Davidson a call today if you’re facing a marijuana transportation charge… and let an experienced Marijuana Attorney get started on your defense!

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Marijuana Transportation Can Net Defendants Extreme Penalty Times and Fines

Unlawful Searches and Seizures

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Unlawful Searches and Seizures

A good deal many of the cases Joshua S. Davidson, a Phoenix Marijuana Defense Attorney, handles involve police-conducted searches. These searches tend to include a defendant’s home, vehicle or belongings but are sometimes conducted without a search warrant.

4th Amendment To U.S. Constitution

While you are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, there are some instances that allow police to search your person or your belongings without getting a valid search warrant. Should the court, later on, rule the search was not legal (and required a search warrant), any damaging evidence – marijuana, cocaine, meth or other illegal substance – that is found will be deemed inadmissible. This means the prosecutor could decide to dismiss the case entirely.

Phoenix law about warrantless searches is constantly changing. Davidson knows that to get the best possible outcome for his clients and suppress evidence in warrantless searches, he needs to stay up to date on the new legal developments. Of course, being able to recognize an illegal police search is important to having an effective legal defense against a marijuana charge in Phoenix.

Mr. Davidson was a previous marijuana offense prosecutor and litigated many challenges in court regarding warrantless searches by police. This previous work enables him to thoroughly review all cases for any possible police misconduct that could cause the court to reduce the charges or dismiss them altogether.

6 Common Exceptions Of The Search Warrant Requirement In Marijuana Cases In Phoenix.

There are some common exceptions to Phoenix’s search warrant requirement in marijuana cases. These are:

– Inventory searches of vehicles before it’s police-impounded

– Searches of persons carried out to “arrest incident”

– Searches conducted with individual consent

– Probable cause search of individual’s vehicle

– Pat down for weapons where officer has concerns for safety

– Searches for evidence that’s subjected to destruction

Too often police were carried out an illegal search, trying to justify the search so they have the right to charge you with a drug-related crime.  If you have been charged with a marijuana crime in Phoenix, it’s important you get the best possible defense. And, with the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson by your side, you can be sure that your charge will be thoroughly investigated. If any police conduct is found, Davidson will aggressively fight for evidence, and your case, to be dismissed. With his experience has a former marijuana prosecutor, he can aggressively fight for you and your rights, confronting any unlawful police tactics in your case. Call him today if you’re facing a marijuana-related charge and get a free initial consultation.

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Unlawful Searches and Seizures

TASC Diversion Program

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on TASC Diversion Program

Purpose of the Phoenix TASC Program

TASC is a program for marijuana diversion in the Phoenix area. The acronym stands for “Treatment Assessment Screening Center.” There are more than 20 states that now offer deferred sentencing and prosecution through TASC programs, and Arizona is one of them. TASC is a non-profit organization offering substance abuse support services, including counseling, education, and marijuana screening.

In cases where the convicted party is eligible, TASC services may be offered in lieu of a prison sentence or another of the severe penalties that usually follow a conviction for a marijuana-related offense. TASC serves as a program of intervention for first-time drug offenders. Its case management services aim to alter and eliminate criminal acts related to marijuana by identifying, monitoring, and managing problems with substance abuse. This case management program helps to relieve our state’s heavily-burdened justice system by reducing the need to prosecute and jail first-time drug offenders.

Phoenix Marijuana Diversion/Deferred Prosecution – TASC Program

If you are a first-time marijuana offender, and the amount of marijuana involved was small, the TASC deferred prosecution program may be an option for you. The opportunity to participate in the program instead of serving a prison sentence is not guaranteed, however. TASC screens those who apply to determine which applicants are eligible. There are specific criteria that defendants are required to meet before they can be accepted into the program. If an accepted defendant fails to complete the program, his original conviction, and the sentence that accompanied it, will go back into effect immediately. He may face a jail sentence or another severe consequence, such as a large fine. However, if he succeeds in completing the program, then TASC will recommend to the court that his drug charges should be dismissed.

Criminal Defense Lawyer – TASC Marijuana Diversion Program in Phoenix

If you hope to qualify for TASC, hiring a criminal defense attorney will be of great help to you. Your attorney will perform the steps necessary to ensure that you are qualified for the TASC program if he cannot get the charges against you dismissed while the case is being heard. The court, the prosecution, and TASC administration must all agree to allow you to participate in the program.

If you have been charged with a marijuana-related offense in the Phoenix area, you would be well-advised to seek an attorney with experience in defending against criminal marijuana charges, preferably one who specializes in them. The Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson frequently acts as the defense in marijuana-related cases all over Maricopa County. If you currently have an active marijuana charges, he can offer you a free consultation. If you choose to retain his services, he will work hard to protect your legal rights, defend against your charges, and obtain the best outcome possible for you. If you are facing a marijuana charge and need an expert legal representative, call (602) 493-3600 today!

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on TASC Diversion Program

Several Possible Marijuana Penalties The Arizona Court System Can Impose On Convicted Persons

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Several Possible Marijuana Penalties The Arizona Court System Can Impose On Convicted Persons

We here at the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson in Phoenix, place our concentration on the criminal defense of our clients who are charged with any number of drug related crimes.  If you’ve been cited for or charged with a marijuana-related offense in the cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale or Tempe, you need the help of an experienced phoenix marijuana attorney.

A marijuana case can be extremely easy or quite complex; it all depends on how much marijuana police found and the defendant’s criminal background. Regardless of these things, you need to have the assistance of an experienced Phoenix marijuana attorney to help you fight it… if not for an acquittal to have the charged or sentence reduced.

Davidson has handled a variety of marijuana-related cases – marijuana possession, trafficking of marijuana, sale of marijuana, production of marijuana and the possession of marijuana with intent to sale and deliver.

A Look At The Classification For Marijuana Possession

2 pounds or less – Class 6 Felony

2 to 4 pounds – Class 5 Felony

4 pounds or more – Class 4 Felony (at least $750 in fines or three times the value of marijuana, whatever is more)

A Look At The Classification For The Sale and Possession Of Marijuana

2 pounds or less – Class 4 Felony

2 to 4 pounds – Class 3 Felony (prison is mandatory upon conviction)

4 pounds or more – Class 2 Felony (three to 12.5 years in a state penitentiary; minimum $750 in fines/$2,000 for selling within a school zone with additional $2,000 in fines)

A Look At The Classification For Trafficking of Marijuana

2 pounds or less – Class 3 Felony

More than 2 pounds – Class 2 Felony (Court will impose recommended sentence at conviction with a possible 5 years)

A Look At The Classification For The Production Of Marijuana

Less than 2 pounds – Class 5 Felony

2 to 4 pounds – Class 4 Felony

More than 4 pounds – Class 3 Felony

Regardless of what offense you are charged with, it’s important to hire the best possible Phoenix marijuana attorney who has the experience and know-how of getting your charges reduced or eliminated altogether.  There are some instances where marijuana cases involving one’s personal possession can qualify for alternative sentencing requirements under the state’s Proposition 200; a conviction for marijuana tends to net probation, jail time, community service and a blemished criminal record.

The state’s mandatory sentencing laws decree severe punishment for convictions. Thus, it’s vitally important to have the experience of a qualified Phoenix marijuana attorney to ensure your rights are protected during the entire process.

If you’re facing a marijuana charge, contact Phoenix’s best Drug Crime Defense Lawyer Joshua S. Davidson right away!

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Several Possible Marijuana Penalties The Arizona Court System Can Impose On Convicted Persons

State of Arizona v. Lovejoy

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on State of Arizona v. Lovejoy

This not guilty verdict was including among a number of high profile cases entrusted to now disgraced former prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon.  Judge Neil Wake recounts in his recent ruling denying the Defendant’s motion for summary judgement:

Lovejoy’s case went to a bench trial in front of a Justice of the Peace on August 15, 2008. After Aubuchon presented the State’s case, Lovejoy’s defense attorney moved for a directed verdict: Judge, the statute as we’ve been talking about all morning requires the culpable mental state of recklessly. And for the State to prove that, they have to show that Sergeant Lovejoy was aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, i.e., the dog was in the car, and that if he left him in there, he would die or become injured. . . . They have shown that he left the car “ the dog in the car. No one is disputing that. They haven’t shown . . . that he knew the dog was back there, but disregarded the risk that he might die. (Doc. 93-1 at 56.) In response, Aubuchon argued, We don’t have to show that he knowingly left the dog in the car. . . . *** We are not arguing that he knew he left the dog in the car, because we would have charged it that way. We’re arguing that he’s reckless. And it is his very conduct and the choices he made that shows he substantially disregarded that risk. Everybody knows that in August in Arizona it is hot in a car. And a trained K-9 officer should be on heightened awareness about what will happen if he forgets the dog in the car. (Doc. 93-1 at 57.) At the close of argument, the Court announced without elaboration, “At this time I’m going to deny the directed verdict.” (Doc. 93-1 at 62.) Lovejoy then put on his defense, after which the Court stated: “All of these so-called distractions [presented by the State as evidence of recklessness] . . . don’t equal “ it doesn’t equal to me to be recklessness. State did not meet their “ their burden here and I find [Lovejoy] not guilty.”

Comments Comments Off on State of Arizona v. Lovejoy

County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Decision to take Lovejoy to trial

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Decision to take Lovejoy to trial

As recounted in Judge Wake’s recent ruling:

Andrew Thomas, then the Maricopa County Attorney, assigned Leonard Ruiz, third in command at the County Attorney’s Office and chief of the trial division, to supervise Lovejoy’s case. Ruiz was never told why he received the assignment. He could not recall another instance of a person with his seniority at the County Attorney’s Office being asked to assist in prosecuting a misdemeanor animal cruelty offense. Deputy County Attorney Anthony Church, who specializes in animal cruelty cases, received the assignment to handle day-to-day tasks associated with the Lovejoy prosecution. Soon after he received the assignment, Church formed the opinion that the case against Lovejoy was weak: [F]rom all the information I had gathered from the police report, [Lovejoy] cared very much about the animal, and I had a hard time believing that he would consciously recognize that the dog was in the back of the car and leave the dog there intentionally or ‚or, you know, understanding that he would be coming back but knowing the dog was back there.

On March 7, 2008, Church and Ruiz jointly requested an “incident review.” An incident review involves submitting the case to a board of senior attorneys who evaluate whether the case should go forward. Church and Ruiz’s written request summarized Simonson’s findings and added, A defense interview with Detective Rob Simonson took place in early February. According to Detective Simonson there is no evidence, which he can point toward, to show that Lovejoy did not simply forget that the dog was in the car. Detective Simonson told the defense attorney the only evidence that exists to prove the reckless mindset is that Lovejoy put the dog into the car and Lovejoy failed to take the dog out of the car, causing the dog’s death. (Doc. 101-2 at 4.) Church and Ruiz then quoted the animal cruelty statute under which Lovejoy was charged (see p. 5, above) and the definition of “recklessly” (see p. 8, above) and concluded: Recklessness requires that the person actually be “aware” of the risk being created by his conduct. In re William G., 192 Ariz. 208, 963 P. 2d 287 (App. 1997). This case needs to be set for incident review to determine whether we have probable cause to prosecute this case and whether we can ethically prosecute this case. (Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).) On March 11, 2008, another Deputy County Attorney, Jeff Trudgian, submitted a memo to Chief Deputy Philip J. MacDonell regarding the Lovejoy case. The memo begins, “Mr. Thomas requested research on the issue of whether “awareness’ of the risk, as needed for a finding of recklessness, can entail forgetfulness “ specifically, as applied to a K-9 police officer with specialized training regarding animal handling.” (Id. at 8.) Trudgian analyzed various cases and the relevant statutes and concluded, The problem is the element of “conscious disregard” that the results would occur or the circumstance exists. It cannot be argued that a person who truly forgot an animal in a vehicle consciously disregarded a known risk. . . .  . . . [T]he facts appear legally insufficient for conviction. (Id. at 10 (emphasis in original).)

On March 28, 2008, yet another Deputy County Attorney, Linda Van Brakel, submitted a memo titled “Lovejoy analysis” to Jim Beene, whose position is unidentified. The memo quotes Church and Ruiz’s statement of facts (contained in their incident review request) and then analyzes the relevant law as applied to those facts. Similar to Trudgian’s memo, Van Brakel’s states, Lovejoy knew the dog was in the car because he placed him there, but the evidence shows he completely forgot about him. In other words, although Lovejoy was no doubt aware of the risk of leaving a dog in a hot car that long, he did not consciously disregard that risk. He simply forgot. That may be negligent, but it is probably not criminally reckless. (Id. at 27 (emphasis in original).) Van Brakel considered but rejected a recklessness argument based on sleep deprivation: Lovejoy should have realized that he was sleep-deprived and might forget about the dog. However, police officers working graveyard shifts, swing shi[f]ts, off-duty jobs, and getting called out at all hours, are commonly sleep deprived and this might be considered normal for a police officer. In other words, loading the dog in the car under the circumstances probably did not create a substantial risk of harm constituting a gross “flagrant and extreme” deviation from the conduct of a police officer or K9 officer. Leaving him in the car, of course, would create a substantial risk of harm constituting a gross deviation from the conduct of a K9 officer, but we lack the “conscious disregard” of such a risk. (Id.) Van Brakel ultimately concluded, “I do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lovejoy acted with criminal recklessness, causing Bandit’s death.” (Id. at 31.) The record before the Court does not reveal whether County Attorney Thomas reviewed any of this material. However, he turned down Church and Ruiz’s incident review request.

In a less than shocking turn of events, Andrew Thomas disregarded all of the advice he was given about prosecuting Officer Lovejoy and turned the case over to his ever-faithful servant, Lisa Aubuchon (who is facing currently facing disciplinary proceedings with her former boss).

Contact a Phoenix Criminal Lawyer today if you are facing criminal charges.

Comments Comments Off on County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Decision to take Lovejoy to trial

More excerpts from Judge Wake’s ruling in the Lovejoy – Arpaio case

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on More excerpts from Judge Wake’s ruling in the Lovejoy – Arpaio case

Judge wake goes on to recount the factual allegations regarding the Sheriff’s news conference:

While Lovejoy was driving in, Arpaio held a press conference announcing that Lovejoy had been arrested. Lovejoy claims he learned of his supposed arrest when a reporter reached him on his cell phone while still driving to the station. When Lovejoy arrived at the station, Summers and Simonson arrested him (without handcuffs) and moved him through the processing, booking, and initial appearance process. An unspecified Sheriff’s Office employee asked the commissioner presiding at the initial appearance to set bail, but the commissioner refused and released Lovejoy. That same day, the Sheriff’s Office issued a news release‚regarding the arrest. Arpaio testified at his deposition that he reviewed it and approved‚the news release “[t]o be disseminated to the media.” … The news release quotes Arpaio as saying that the decision to book Lovejoy into jail was “difficult” but “Lovejoy must be treated like anyone else in similar circumstances. I have a strict policy on animal abuse and neglect whereby offenders are booked into jail.’” … At his deposition, Arpaio confirmed that he made this statement. The news release further quotes Arpaio as saying, “Our investigation determined that Bandit’s death was not an intentional act on Lovejoy’s part, but it was reckless and for that, Lovejoy must be charged.’” … When asked about this statement at his deposition, Arpaio replied, “That’s what the investigate‚ investigators said, I presume.”  He was then asked, “You knew when you stepped in front of the cameras [at the press conference] to announce that [Lovejoy] was being charged and put into jail, booked into jail, that [he] had not done anything intentional to hurt that poor dog, didn’t you?” Arpaio responded, “Well, I’m not going to get into the law, whether it’s intentional or not.”…

It doesn’t take a high profile case like this for a rush to judgement to damage one’s rights.  If you or a loved one are being investigated for a criminal offense, contact a Scottsdale Criminal Attorney today.

Categories : Criminal Law, Politics
Comments Comments Off on More excerpts from Judge Wake’s ruling in the Lovejoy – Arpaio case

Maricopa County Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment denied

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Maricopa County Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment denied

District court Judge Neil Wake recited the following undisputed facts:

That night, he had trouble sleeping because he did not feel well. Around 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, August 11, Lovejoy’s lieutenant at the Chandler Police Department awoke Lovejoy with a phone call. The lieutenant reported a possible sighting of a serial rapist that had recently been terrorizing the Chandler community. Lovejoy’s lieutenant asked Lovejoy to report for duty. Lovejoy agreed, but instead of getting out of bed, he fell back asleep because he was extremely tired. About an hour later, Lovejoy’s lieutenant called again. Lovejoy then got out of bed, put on his uniform, put Bandit into his police SUV, and began driving toward the scene. As he drove, he spoke with his lieutenant again by cell phone. In frustration, the lieutenant told Lovejoy to return home. Lovejoy did so and placed Bandit in his backyard kennel, but Lovejoy did not go back to sleep because he was upset with himself for falling asleep after his lieutenant’s first phone call that morning. By this time, Lovejoy had slept only about six-and-a-half hours over the previous two days. Lovejoy volunteered for an extra-duty traffic control shift that morning beginning at 6:00 a.m. He was not required to bring Bandit with him but he brought Bandit anyway because, he says, he wanted to be prepared if the serial rapist was again spotted. Although the record is somewhat hazy, it appears that Lovejoy and Bandit both remained in the SUV for the entire shift, which ended at 9:00 a.m. Lovejoy believes that Bandit had fallen asleep in his kennel by this point because daytime was Bandit’s usual sleep time. While driving home, Lovejoy received various cell phone calls and was still talking on his phone when he pulled into his driveway, exited his vehicle, and walked into his house. Lovejoy did not take Bandit out of the SUV. For the rest of the day, Lovejoy attended to various family obligations, including helping his stepson with a minor car accident, shopping with one of his daughters, and going out to dinner with his wife. He used his personal vehicle for all of these tasks.

At about 10:30 that night, he returned to his police SUV to get it ready for another extra-duty shift, smelled an unusual smell, and discovered Bandit dead in his kennel. Lovejoy was distraught. He soon called fellow Chandler Police Officer Ron Emary to help him report the incident, but he could barely do more than babble over the phone. Emary arrived on the scene soon after, as did Chandler Police Department Commander Joseph Gaylord, who photographed the scene, cleaned up Bandit’s kennel, and took Bandit’s body to an animal hospital for cremation.

As those who followed this story are aware, Officer Lovejoy was later charged by the County Attorney’s Office and found not guilty of animal cruelty.  If you or a loved one are charged with any criminal offense, you should immediately seek legal advice from a Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney.

Comments Comments Off on Maricopa County Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment denied

Posting an “Appearance Bond”

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Posting an “Appearance Bond”

Frequently asked questions about bonds and pretrial release in Arizona


What is an Appearance Bond?

Posting bond

An appearance bond, also known as a bail bond (bond) allows a person (the defendant) who is in custody (jail) to be released pending further court appearances. The purpose of the appearance bond is to guarantee the arrested person’s appearance at a time and place specified by the court. The amount of the bail bond varies with the seriousness of the charge and is set by the court.

Is it always necessary to post a bond?

No. Under certain conditions, the court will release a defendant without bond. The court may accept the defendant’s promise to appear at a time and place specified by the court. This is known as being released “Own Recognizance” and is typically seen in cases where people are charged with a DUI in Scottsdale, Arizona.   A defendant may also be released upon another person’s (designated by the court) promise to ensure the defendant’s appearance as required by the court. This is called a “Third Party Release.”

What will the court accept as bond?

The court will accept cash for the full dollar amount of the bond.  Most courts will accept cash, certified money orders, or cashier checks; however, not all courts accept personal checks, business checks, or credit cards. Contact the court or jail fort detailed information. Courts also accept paper bonds posted by bail bond agencies.

Who can post bond?

Everyone can post a bond paid in cash for the person who is charged with the crime.  Bail bond companies are able to file paper bonds which basically require them to pay in cash if the defendant thereafter fails to appear or otherwise violates the terms of their release.

What happens if the defendant fails to appear as ordered?

The court will schedule a bond forfeiture hearing and all parties involved will be notified of the date and time. Depending on the outcome of the hearing, the court:

A. May order the bond forfeited;

B. May also order a warrant for the defendant’s arrest:

C. May allow the defendant another chance to appear.

If a bond is forfeited, can the person who posted the bond get their money back?

No, so be sure to keep this in mind before posting a bond on someone else’s behalf.

What happens to collateral given to a bail bond agent should a defendant fail to appear and be court orders the bond forfeited?

The court will order the cash value of the bond paid by the bail bond company. Property given as collateral can be sold by bonding companies to provide cash for the bond, if necessary. Any contract regarding the collateral and/or cash deposits is between the bonding company and the person obtaining the bond.  The court cannot and will not intervene.

What happens if a defendant appears as ordered?

A. The court may order the bond be returned (exonerated) to the bond poster. Once the judge orders exoneration, the court prepares to refund a cash bond to the bond poster or provides written clearance to be given to a bail bond company. Once clearance is provided, the bail bond company initiates the release of collateral; or,

B. If the defendant posted the bond, the court may order that the bond be converted to pay fines, fees, surcharges, or restitution on the case at hand and/or other cases involving the defendant. The court does not need the defendant’s consent to order the conversion: or,

C. The court may order the bond be converted to fines fees, surcharges, or restitution on the case at hand and/or other cases the defendant may have IF the person, who posted the bond, not the defendant; agrees to the bond conversion; or,

D. The court may order the bond remain in effect until the defendant’s next appearance.

After the bond has been released, the bonding company should return title to the collateral used to secure the bond. You may need to supply the bonding company with a copy of the court order releasing the bond.


Bond Poster – Person who posts an appearance bond

Collateral – Property or titles given by a person to a bail bond agent who then posts the bond.

Convert – Use of the bond money to pay what the defendant was ordered by the court to pay. The order could include victim restitution, fines and surcharges, attorney fees, or jail fees

Defendant – Person charged with a criminal act.

Exonerate – Return of bond money to the bond poster.

Forfeit – Bond money is turned over to the city; county or state by the judge’s order.

Paper bond – The paper given to the court by the bail bond agent showing that collateral was given.

Be careful! The form used when bond is posted may have several options that allow the court to use the money to “Pay for the monetary obligations owed on this case and other cases this defendant may have in this court.” Please read the form carefully and only mark those statements that you agree with; you cannot change your mind later.

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Posting an “Appearance Bond”


The Arizona Defense Law Blog is published by Phoenix DUI and criminal defense attorney Joshua S. Davidson. Nothing on this website is intended to create an Attorney-Client relationship and the information provided herein is for general information purposes only.


Contact Us

Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson, PLC (480) 248-7022