DOMINGUEZ

v.

CLOUTIER

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0071 _____________________________

DANIEL JULIO DOMINGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MAJOR JEFF CLOUTIER, Director, Alachua County Department of the Jail,

Respondent. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

January 31, 2024

ON EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PER CURIAM.

Having reviewed Respondent’s return, it is the judgment of the Court that Petitioner shall be released on Monday, February 5, 2024, at noon, unless the trial court enters an order setting reasonable conditions of pretrial release or conducts further proceedings and enters an order under section 907.041(5)(c), Florida Statutes. No costs or charges are awarded to either party.

LEWIS and LONG, JJ., concur; RAY, J., concurs with opinion.

2 _____________________________

No Motions for Rehearing will be permitted.

_____________________________

RAY, J., concurs with opinion.

The Florida Constitution guarantees that a presumptively innocent individual will be released prior to trial on reasonable conditions. Art. I, § 14, Fla. Const. Because the petitioner is not charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life in prison, the only exception to this guarantee is if a court finds that no conditions of pretrial release can reasonably protect the community, ensure the presence of the accused, or ensure the integrity of the judicial process. See id. That has not occurred. Yet, the petitioner has been detained indefinitely based on nothing more than an arrest on probable cause. I therefore concur with the decision to order the petitioner’s release unless the trial court enters an order setting reasonable conditions of pretrial release or conducts further proceedings and enters an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting pretrial detention. The Florida Legislature has implemented the constitutional right to pretrial release by statute, and the Florida Supreme Court has adopted procedural rules for pretrial release determinations. See §§ 907.041, 903.046, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131, 3.132. For non-dangerous crimes, there is a presumption of release on nonmonetary conditions. § 907.041(3)(a), Fla. Stat. For dangerous crimes, a monetary condition is required at first appearance upon the finding of probable cause. § 907.041(5)(b), Fla. Stat. In both situations, the court must consider a variety of factors to determine whether nonmonetary conditions, monetary conditions, or a combination of both will protect the community against unreasonable danger from the defendant, ensure the return of the defendant, and ensure the integrity of the judicial process. See § 907.041(3)(a), Fla. Stat.; § 903.046(2)(a)–(m), Fla. Stat. (listing factors); § 903.047(1)(a)–(c), Fla. Stat. (listing conditions of pretrial release). If the court determines that no conditions of release will accomplish these objectives and the statutory criteria for pretrial

3 detention are otherwise satisfied, the court must enter an order of detention supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. See § 907.041(5)(k), Fla. Stat. More to the point here, without an order of detention, the court must set reasonable conditions that will put the accused out on bail (read: release pending trial). There is a legislative expectation, consistent with the constitutional guarantee of pretrial release, that a person will not be imprisoned prior to trial without a determination by a court that there are no conditions of release that could reasonably protect the community, ensure the presence of the accused, or ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Here, the State did not seek pretrial detention and there is no order of detention. Instead, the trial court granted the petitioner pretrial release with conditions including restrictions on travel, a prohibition on the possession of weapons or firearms, GPS monitoring, and a $500,000 bond. As to the financial condition, the undisputed evidence showed that the petitioner cannot afford that amount. The petitioner testified that he was not working prior to being arrested and does not have any income or real property. He said that he does have a “small amount of savings, about $15,000,” and a small scooter, worth $1,500 at most, if sold. His parents testified that unless they sold their house, all they could contribute was $10,000. The State chose not to cross-examine the petitioner or offer contradictory evidence about his financial condition. Thus, the most we know is that the petitioner and his family can only come up with $25,000 or a $250,000 bond.¹ While this court has previously stated that monetary bail is not per se excessive or unreasonable simply because the accused is unable to pay it, Dyson v. Campbell, 921 So. 2d 692, 693 (Fla. 1st

2 It is worth noting that monetary bail, by itself, does not protect the community from risk of harm because funds posted to satisfy such a condition will not be forfeited in the event the accused commits a new crime following release. See § 903.26(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (governing when and how bonds are forfeited).

_____________________________

Stacy A. Scott, Public Defender, and Alexis J. Giannasoli, Assistant Public Defender, Gainesville, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary Lawton, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Brian Stuart Kramer, State Attorney, Gainesville, for Respondent.