In the United States, when the government criminally charges someone but later dismisses the charges or fails to prove guilt, the individual remains responsible for any costs incurred defending against the prosecution. This practice does not align with the presumption of innocence and the fairness principles of due process, which are central to the legal system of the United States. When the government brings charges that do not result in conviction, individuals who are acquitted or whose charges are dismissed (collectively, “non-convicted individuals”) should be compensated for the costs they incurred to remain free from pretrial detention. If a person is not wealthy, defending against criminal charges often results in significant financial burdens—and cash bail premiums are one of those burdens.
A premium is a percentage of the amount of money a court demands from a defendant to secure that person’s release from detention prior to a resolution of the charges. The premium is paid to a commercial bail bond agent who, backed by an insurance company, promises to pay the bail amount if the defendant fails to attend any court hearings. In cases where the State dismisses criminal charges or fails to prove guilt, neither the government responsible for placing the defendant in the position to need commercial cash bail services nor the bail bond company is required to refund the premium costs. This unnecessarily leads to unjust, government-induced hardships on defendants and their loved ones.
The experiences of two people incarcerated in Minnesota demonstrate the hardships cash bail premiums impose. In an interview conducted on March 23, 2025, Aaron Teague discussed his experience contracting with Midwest Bonding. Teague, detained in Anoka County jail in 2021, gave a Midwest Bonding agent a $10,000 down payment on a $50,000 premium charge for a $500,000 bond. His wife and mother cosigned to secure his pretrial release, and his mother also provided her home as collateral. The home was owned by Teague’s mother and her husband, who was not Teague’s father, but was willing to help.
Teague reports that the Midwest Bonding agent failed to explain to his mother the risks she and her husband were taking on as cosigners, or that the premium would not be returned once trial concluded. This sentiment is neither uncommon nor unfounded. The lack of clear contract terms and explanation of rights and obligations under a cash bail contract contributes to the vulnerability of defendants and their loved ones. For Teague and his family, those unexplained risks and obligations came to fruition.
After Teague was convicted, his wife continued making $1,000 monthly payments on the premium until the two separated. Shortly thereafter, Teague’s mother received a court summons when Midwest Bonding pursued collection of the premium against her. Despite foregoing car payments, credit card bills, and necessary medical treatments, Teague’s mother was not always able to make the monthly premium payments on time. Eventually, Midwest Bonding put a levy on her bank account and Teague’s mother had to file for bankruptcy. Teague’s mother worried the debt would ruin her marriage, and Teague believes it drove an unspoken wedge between him, his mother, and his mother’s husband. “I’m her child,” Teague said, “so, she doesn’t blame me directly. But every time I call home, the only conversation she has with me is about her financial struggles. I feel like deep down, she does blame me.”
In another interview, Joseph Campbell expressed that the confusion surrounding the cash bail process led to dissension within his family as well. Campbell faced a $100,000 bail while detained in Hennepin County, Minnesota in 2009. Unable to afford the full 10 percent premium required by Midwest Bonding, he and his family managed to make a $5,000 down payment. Campbell sold his car and put up his home as collateral. In addition, his wife, mother-in-law, and mother cosigned his bail bond agreement to secure his pretrial release. The contract demanded $1,000 monthly payments with interest that added up to another $1,000. After bailing out, Campbell found it difficult to secure a job without personal transportation and was rearrested after three months for different charges. His subsequent pretrial detention prevented him from continuing payments on his initial bail premium. Campbell reports that Midwest Bonding immediately began harassing his cosigners. Bond agents threatened to pursue a judgment against them and to force his wife and children out of their home. A lien was eventually placed on Campbell’s home, and a judgment was filed against his wife, mother-in-law, and mother. Their tax refunds were garnished to satisfy the debt, and the judgment also appeared as a loan default on each of their credit histories. As a result, Campbell’s parents’ plan to purchase a home was delayed by seven years. Campbell reports that the greatest harm resulting from the premium was the mistrust and guilt created between him and his wife, mother-in-law, and mother. “My family accused me of tricking, manipulating, and taking advantage of them,” Campbell said. “My mother said she would not forgive me.”