Ex parte Lonardo

• Decision Date: 26 September 1949
• Citation: Ex parte Lonardo, 89 N.E.2d 502, 86 Ohio App. 289 (Ohio App. 1949)
• Parties: Ex parte LONARDO et al.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

89 N.E.2d 502

86 Ohio App. 289

Ex parte LONARDO et al.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga.

September 26, 1949

J. Frank Azzarello, Cleveland, Louis Fernberg, Cleveland, for petitioners. McNAMEE, Judge.

Petitioners invoke these proceedings for the purpose of being admitted to reasonable bail. They are now confined to jail in default of bail fixed by the Municipal Court of Cleveland in the sum of $75,000.00 as to each petitioner. Each of the petitioners is charged with being a suspicious person in violation of the ordinances of the City of Cleveland. The maximum penalty for conviction upon this charge is a fine of $50.00 and imprisonment for thirty days.

The petitioners previously have been convicted of serious crimes on one or more occasions. The assistant Prosecutor represents that petitioners are members of an organized band of law breakers currently under investigation by the public authorities and that their release on bail at this time would constitute a menace to the peace and safety of this community. Also, it is stated that at an early date the prosecuting attorney proposes to present evidence to the grand jury which may result in charges of serious violations of the criminal law against these petitioners.

The petitioners' bad reputations as evidenced by their criminal records, and the representations as to their dangerous and lawless proclivities are factors that enlist the sympathetic understanding of this court in the effort of the law enforcement agency to keep the petitioners confined in jail. We are aware of the difficulties encountered by public officials in the investigation and prosecution of crime. Also, we recognize the worthy motives that impel conscientious law enforcement officers to ask for high bail on minor charges against persons suspected of committing major crimes. But such considerations must yield to the imperious voice of the Constitution which the courts are sworn to support.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of Ohio and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States both provide that 'excessive bail shall not be required'. The provision of the Ohio Constitution reads:

'Section 9. Bailable offenses; of bail, fine, and punishment.

'All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'

From these constitutional provisions there derives the general principle governing the allowance of bail that the amount thereof shall be reasonable. The primary purpose of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at the trial, but in determining the amount of bail, the following factors, among others, may be considered: The nature of the offense; the penalty upon conviction thereof; the character and reputation of the accused, and the probability of his appearance for trial.

In the leading case of People ex rel. Sammons v. Bernard W. Snow, 340 Ill. 464, 173 N.E. 8, 9, 72 A.L.R. 798, the petitioner was charged with vagrancy under the law of Illinois. The maximum penalty upon conviction of this charge was imprisonment at hard labor for six months or a fine of $100.00. It appeared that the...