CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) RESOURCE CENTER Read More
Add To Favorites

Boulder DA Stan Garnett concerned about bond assessment tool

Daily Camera - 4/17/2017

April 16--The Boulder County District Attorney's Office is concerned that the risk assessment questionnaire the county uses on people awaiting trial is leading to lower bonds that put the community at risk should those people re-offend.

But officials with Boulder County maintain that the test is the best way to assess defendants and said numbers show bond amounts have very little influence on a person's behavior outside of jail.

The Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool (CPAT) was first created in 2013 is a 12-part questionnaire that arrestees eligible for bond fill out upon being booked into jail.

The questions range from asking about the defendant's housing situation to their past criminal history to mental health and substance issues. Points are given depending on the answer, with the total score being used to assign the defendant into one of four risk categories, with one being the lowest risk to re-offend and skip their hearings and four being the highest.

"I think that the CPAT is the best tool we have to predict risk," said Monica Rotner, the division manager at Boulder County Community Justice Services, which administers the assessment. "It's been shown to be valid on a statewide level."

But Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett said he thinks that judges are now relying too heavily on the CPAT tests.

"We have really been concerned that there has been an over-reliance on the CPAT score that is used, and that the bonds we are getting are not taking into account public safety and the possibility the defendant could commit additional crimes," Garnett said. "We're concerned that there is a culture developing that doesn't put enough emphasis on protecting the community."

Garnett said he thinks Boulder County already gives out lower bonds than most jurisdictions, and said he thinks judges have been giving out more personal recognizance or low cash bonds since the county fully implemented CPAT last year. Personal recognizance bonds don't require the defendant to put up any money up front, while cash bonds allow the defendants to post a smaller bond -- usually 10 percent -- of the original bond if they can pay cash.

"Most of the time if we don't see a public safety risk, we're fine with them awaiting trial out of custody," Garnett said. "But from the DA's perspective, we believe that high monetary bonds are sometimes appropriate to keep people in custody and protect the community."

'Shortchanging the public's safety'

Garnett said his office is especially worried about the risk of re-offending for defendants in sexual assault, domestic violence, and repeat DUI cases. One recent example he cited was Nathanal Lobato, who is accused of sexually assaulting a teenager and is now accused of assaulting his girlfriend while he was out on bond.

After his sexual assault arrest, Lobato was given a $10,000 bond with a $1,000 cash option, which he posted. After his second arrest, he was given a $15,000 bond with a $1,500 cash option. He was also able to post that amount, and currently is free on a total of $2,500 bond for the two cases.

"Lobato is a good example of a guy who comes in, gets a bond of $10,000, which he is immediately able to make, then turns around and allegedly commits another serious offense and then gets a bond of only $15,000 which is also able to immediately make," Garnett said. "In hindsight, the (first bond) was not set high enough to protect the public."

On Tuesday, the suspect in a sexual assault on a sleeping woman was released on a $2,000 cash bond.

Garnett also pointed out a few other examples, including a sexual assault suspect who got a CPAT score of 2 and was given a $25,000 bond, was later arrested on suspicion of contacting the alleged victim and got a $500 bond for the violation case.

In another case, a man convicted of domestic violence was arrested on a probation violation and given a $10,00 bond, arrested again and given a $5,000 bond, and then arrested while out on bond on that case and given a $25,000 bond.

Garnett thinks a lot of the lower bonds trace back to judges only looking at good CPAT scores and not the possible threats to the community.

"I think what tends to happen is somebody scores well on the CPAT, which is useful, but if you emphasize it too much then you are going to be shortchanging the public's safety," Garnett said.

So Garnett said that he has instructed his prosecutors to be pursue higher bonds for defendants who might pose a public safety risk, even if they might have lower CPAT scores.

"We're going to take much more aggressive positions," Garnett said.

'It's not the money that matters'

But Rotner said while the CPAT score does not evaluate long-term recidivism risk, the questions are designed to evaluate the risk a defendant poses during the pre-trial period.

As for cases like Lobato, Rotner said that while 87 percent of people who score a one on the CPAT test don't re-offend and show up to their court cases, there will always be those who don't.

"There will always be that 13 percent, that's the risk analysis," Rotner said. "The other alternative is we keep everyone in."

She also said data shows that the bond amount doesn't affect a defendant's risk to re-offend once they are out.

"What we really know nationally is that it's not the money that matters," Rotner said. "Those people who pay money versus those who don't, that's not what keeps them from being risky."

Instead, Rotner said that case-appropriate bond conditions like electronic home monitoring or substance abuse monitoring would be better than high bonds at keeping defendants from re-offending and to ensure they come to court hearings.

"The money's role is only present in regards to whether or not they stay the entire time in jail," Rotner said. "Research shows that if they are going to be released, money isn't the thing that stops them from re-offending. What does help once someone posts that bond is adequate and sustained supervision."

But Garnett said that money does matter in that it sometimes decides who can even get out of jail. And while Garnett agreed not everyone should be kept in jail while awaiting trial, he does think there are some defendants that should not be released regardless of what sort of bond conditions or supervision is put in place.

"We've seen enough cases where that hasn't worked," Garnett said.

"We want to do a better job making sure dangerous people remain in custody while they await trial. When we have violent offenders able to bond out, that can be a public safety risk and we want to try to address that."

Mitchell Byars: 303-473-1329, byarsm@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/mitchellbyars

___

(c)2017 the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.)

Visit the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.) at www.dailycamera.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.