This Act mandates that individuals charged with offenses in the District of Columbia must execute a secured appearance bond to be released pending trial.
Andy Biggs
Representative
AZ-5
The Keep Offenders Off Our Streets Act mandates that individuals charged with offenses in the District of Columbia must execute a secured appearance bond to be released pending trial. This legislation explicitly prohibits the D.C. government from allowing release on personal recognizance or unsecured bonds. The Act amends D.C. Code provisions to ensure that release is conditioned upon a financial guarantee ensuring court appearance.
The “Keep Offenders Off Our Streets Act” is a direct federal intervention into the District of Columbia’s criminal justice system, specifically targeting how people awaiting trial are released. In short, this bill eliminates the ability of D.C. courts to release a person charged with an offense based on a personal promise—known as “personal recognizance”—or any other unsecured method. From now on, according to this Act, anyone released pretrial in D.C. must execute a secured appearance bond with "solvent sureties," meaning they must put up cash or collateral guaranteed by someone who can cover the bond amount if they skip court.
For regular folks, the biggest change is the removal of non-financial release options. Currently, D.C. courts can release people pretrial without requiring cash if they are deemed not to be a flight risk or a danger to the community. This bill strikes that option completely from the D.C. Code (specifically amending section 23-1321). This means that even if a judge determines you’re not a flight risk and you’re charged with a minor offense, you still have to post a secured bond set high enough to guarantee your return to court. This is a massive shift, making pretrial liberty directly contingent on having access to money.
This mandatory secured bond requirement creates an immediate, high barrier for low-income individuals. Imagine two people charged with the same offense: one works a steady job and has $5,000 in savings, and the other is living paycheck-to-paycheck. If the judge sets the secured bond at $2,000, the person with savings can likely post it and go home to prepare for trial and continue working. The person without savings, however, will likely remain in jail simply because they cannot afford the bond, regardless of how low their flight risk is. The bill essentially replaces a risk assessment with a wealth assessment for pretrial freedom.
Beyond the impact on defendants, this Act is a clear preemption of D.C.’s local legislative authority. The bill explicitly forbids the Council of the District of Columbia and the Mayor from creating or enforcing any rule that permits pretrial release without that secured bond (Section 2, amending the D.C. Home Rule Act). D.C. has long sought autonomy over its local laws, and this bill directly overrides the decisions of elected D.C. officials regarding their own criminal procedure policies. It’s the federal government stepping in and saying, “You must run your local bail system this way,” regardless of local preferences or reforms.
The stated goal of the bill—to ensure defendants appear in court—is achieved by adding a financial guarantee. However, the practical challenge is the immediate effect on D.C.’s pretrial detention population. If people who previously qualified for non-financial release are now forced to stay in jail because they can’t afford a secured bond, D.C.’s jails will likely see an increase in the number of people detained pretrial. Furthermore, the bill includes a severability clause, which is a detail worth noting: if a court strikes down one part of this law (say, the part overriding local D.C. law), the rest of the bill—the mandate for secured bail—remains fully in effect. This shows a clear intent to ensure the core change to the bail system sticks, regardless of potential legal challenges to the federal overreach.