Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

Courts contemplate that when bail is set, that that [sic] defendant will have
to go to a surety and post some security in order to get the bond, but that is
not the case....
[W]hat this provision does, this rule, what this rule does is it requires
the security to be posted with the Court. It takes that choice away and that's
why the language is [sic] of the rule is important . . . . So that allows the
defendant to go out and secure an unsecured bond where he can make a
promissory note or some kind of promise to pay or a payment plan and that
- - this provision ensures that the Court will have security for that posted, and
that I think is the rationale for that provision, and I think that that makes it
constitutional.

VRP (Oct. 18, 2012) at 26-27. The court therefore explained that the import of the

rule, and what distinguishes the rule from the other subsections of CrR 3 .2(b), is that

it requires some money or other security to be posted by the defendant with the court.

Under the rule, the money or other security itself secures the defendant's bond and

his appearance, even if he obtains the money or security through some kind of loan

(such as the trial court here suggested, a promissory note). For this reason, CrR

3.2(b)(4) does not appear to contemplate that a third party will assume the

defendant's burden and obligation, which is the definition of a surety. Under a

8
Even if Barton convinced a family member or friend to put up some kind of
collateral worth $50,000, that collateral-not a third-party promise-would secure
Barton's appearance.

-19-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

traditional surety arrangement, a third party stands in the shoes of the defendant.