Strange as it may sound, a new policy in Douglas County is designed to make life easier for people suspected of dealing and using illegal drugs.

In essence, the policy in district court helps drug suspects save money by assuring they don’t have to post bond twice at the Douglas County Jail, something defense attorneys had complained was unfairly burdensome to their clients. Because of the change, suspected drug dealers — such as a 21-year-old Lawrence man caught with suspected cocaine early Wednesday after a traffic stop at 23rd Street and Learnard Avenue — are now freed from jail within hours of their arrest without having to post a penny for bond.

Only after they’re formally charged and re-arrested — a process that can take months because of delays at the state lab that analyzes drugs — are they required to post bond money.

Rick Frydman, a defense attorney who lobbied for the change, said it’s only fair. He’d like to see it taken a step further so that people aren’t even arrested in the first place until prosecutors have lab results in hand.

“To me, you should only be taken to jail if you’re going to be charged,” he said.

Revolving door

A local bondsman, however, is angry about the change, in part because it’s affecting his income, but also because he thinks it will make it easier for drug dealers to skip town.

“It’s a lousy business, and other counties aren’t doing it,” said Sam Fields, owner of Applejacks and AJ’s bonding companies. “They just put the drug dealer back out on the street in an hour.”

Until recently, a drug case in Douglas County might have unfolded as follows: Police caught someone suspected of selling drugs, seized the contraband and put it into evidence. The suspect was arrested and booked into the county jail, where the suspect faced a bond of anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000. The suspect had to either post the money or pay a bondsman a nonrefundable fee of about 10 percent to put up the money, with the promise to show up at an assigned court date a few weeks later.

The suspect then showed in court, only to learn that prosecutors wouldn’t file formal charges until the lab at the Kansas Bureau of Investigation found time to test the suspected drugs. That’s a necessary step in order to establish for a judge or a jury that the substance is, in fact, an illegal drug and not oregano, baking soda or something else.

Some time down the line, maybe a few months later, lab results arrived. Prosecutors filed charges. The suspect was arrested and had to post bond again.

“It’s a boon for the bondsmen,” attorney Frydman said.

Judge intervenes

Fields, the bondsman, said a defense attorney approached him late last year angry that a client didn’t have any money to pay a retainer fee because the woman had spent all her money posting bond twice on a drug charge.

“I said, ‘It ain’t my fault she wanted out of jail,'” Fields said.

Defense attorneys raised the issue to District Judge Robert Fairchild, the administrative judge. After meeting with other judges and consulting with Dist. Atty. Christine Kenney and Sheriff Rick Trapp, Fairchild announced a new policy effective early this year. Unless drug defendants actually have been charged, they’re now released from jail on their own recognizance without having to pay any money upfront.

Fairchild said judges thought it unfair that drug defendants were the only type of offenders being required to post double bond.

“If there’s not even enough evidence yet to file charges, why should we make them post a bond and then have to post again later?” Fairchild asked.

D.A. frustrated

Kenney said that ideally, her office would be ready to proceed with drug charges immediately after an arrest. But the KBI lab has a backlog of roughly 800 evidence samples to be tested at any one time, officials said.

Mike Van Stratton, director of the KBI lab, said that between 65 and 75 new evidence samples arrive at the lab for testing each day. Even if the Legislature were to appropriate more money to hire scientists, the KBI wouldn’t have enough lab space to put them to work, he said.

Kenney said that if her office were to file drug charges without having lab results in hand, a case might later have to be dismissed because of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

She said she didn’t have an official position on the new court policy but understood the need for it.

“I think it’s a problem in the respect that it’s frustrating, and it appears to be sending the wrong message: that we’re not taking these cases seriously or that the individual may think at that point, ‘It’s over. I got away with it,'” she said. “But in actuality, we will reach the same result. … We will get our lab report. We will get charges filed, and we will pursue that case.”