An act to add Section 1302.5 to the Penal Code, relating to bail.
Summary
SB 562 would create a new Penal Code section requiring courts to provide bail relief in two narrow situations involving bail surety bonds entered into on or after January 1, 2026. First, if a prosecutor moves to dismiss a complaint or indictment within 21 days of the defendant’s original arraignment and the bond has been exonerated, the court must order a refund of the bail premium, less a 2% administrative reimbursement and any premium tax paid to the state. Second, if charges are not filed within 21 days after a bail surety bond is posted, and the arrestee has not missed any mandatory court appearances and the bond has been exonerated, the court must exonerate the bond and order a similar refund.
The bill also requires the court to act within 30 days after the defendant or arrestee becomes eligible for relief. It applies only prospectively to surety bonds entered into on or after January 1, 2026, and includes a severability clause so that if one part is invalidated, the rest can still stand.
Impact
SB 562 would add a new statutory refund and bond-exoneration remedy to California’s bail law, specifically amending the Penal Code to govern when bail premiums must be returned by licensed bail surety agents. It would affect courts, prosecutors, defendants, arrestees, and the bail bond industry by creating a mandatory refund process in cases where charges are dismissed quickly or not filed within the specified 21-day period, while preserving a limited administrative fee and state premium tax deduction. Because it applies only to future surety bonds, it would not alter existing bonds entered into before January 1, 2026.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill has generally advanced with majority support, but not without some opposition. It received favorable committee action in the Senate and later passed the Senate floor by a 25-11 vote, indicating meaningful support for the consumer-protection and fairness rationale behind refunding premiums when a case is dismissed or never filed. At the same time, the bill was placed on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file, which suggests fiscal or policy concerns remained significant enough to warrant closer review.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to center on the bill’s impact on the bail industry and the administrative and fiscal consequences of mandating premium refunds. Supporters are likely focused on fairness to defendants and arrestees who pay for bail coverage but do not receive the expected benefit because charges are dismissed quickly or never filed. Opponents or cautious legislators may be concerned about the burden on licensed bail surety agents, the mechanics of refunding premiums, and whether the 21-day deadlines and exoneration requirements are too rigid or could create disputes over eligibility and timing.
To amend sections 3905.83 and 3905.84 and to enact sections 109.861 and 3905.96 of the Revised Code to enact law regarding charitable bail organizations.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 3, Part 13; Title 39; Title 40; Title 41; Title 56; Title 62 and Title 67, Chapter 4, Part 8, relative to bail bonds.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 3, Part 13; Title 39; Title 40; Title 41; Title 56; Title 62 and Title 67, Chapter 4, Part 8, relative to bail bonds.