Bond Amount, Conditions, and Nebbia Holds

← Bond and Pretrial Release in Florida

Once release is available at all, two further questions follow: how much, on what conditions — and where the money came from.

General terms — § 903.011

• “Bail” and “bond” include all forms of pretrial release.
• Any monetary or cash component may be met by a surety bond.
• Differing amounts may not be set for cash versus surety versus other forms of release.
• Only a judge may set, reduce, or otherwise alter bail.
• On the defendant’s motion or its own, a court may reconsider the monetary component if the defendant is unable to post a monetary bond. § 903.011(4)

The statewide uniform bond schedule

Since January 1, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court adopts a uniform statewide bond schedule annually, governing offenses for which a person may be released before and in lieu of first appearance. § 903.011(5).

A chief judge may adopt a local schedule that sets higher amounts	No Supreme Court approval required
A chief judge may not set lower amounts	Unless the Supreme Court reviews and approves the local schedule
The schedule at first appearance	Does not bind the judge in an individual case

No release before first appearance — § 903.011(6)

Regardless of any schedule, a person may not be released before first appearance, and a judge must set bail on an individualized consideration of the § 903.046(2) criteria, if the person:

• Was on pretrial release, probation, or community control — in Florida or any other state — when arrested for any felony
• Was designated a sexual offender or sexual predator in any state
• Was arrested for violating a protective injunction
• Was on release under § 947.1405, § 947.146, § 947.149, or § 944.4731
• Has ever been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender, habitual violent felony offender, three-time violent felony offender, or violent career criminal
• Has been arrested three or more times in the 6 months preceding the current arrest
• Is currently charged with a capital, life, first-degree, or second-degree felony; a chapter 782 homicide or attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit one; and other listed offenses

The bail criteria — § 903.046(2)

The stated purpose is to ensure appearance and to protect the community against unreasonable danger. The court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense; the weight of the evidence; family ties, length of residence, immigration status, employment history, financial resources, and mental condition; past and present conduct including convictions, prior flight, and failures to appear; the nature and probability of danger to the community; the source of funds; whether the defendant is already on release, probation, or parole; the street value of any drugs involved; and the nature and probability of intimidation.

Failing to appear carries a fixed price. A defendant who failed to appear and later voluntarily surrendered is ineligible for a recognizance bond. One who failed to appear and was later arrested is ineligible for recognizance or any nonmonetary bond, and faces a monetary commitment of at least $2,000 or twice the original bond, whichever is greater. The court retains discretion if the defendant proves circumstances beyond his control. § 903.046(2)(d)

Nebbia holds — source of funds

Start with what Nebbia is not. United States v. Nebbia, 357 F.2d 303, 304–05 (2d Cir. 1966), is a federal decision of the Second Circuit. It binds nothing in a Florida state court. It held that where a defendant posted $100,000 in cash bail, the trial court had discretion to inquire into the source of the funds to ensure the defendant would appear.

Florida judges and lawyers nonetheless say “Nebbia hold” as everyday shorthand. A trial judge put it plainly in one reported case: “Nebbia really is what we use in shorthand to mean source of funds and to avoid citing the criminal procedure rule and the statute.” Snell v. Junior, No. 3D18-1316 (Fla. 3d DCA July 5, 2018).

The operative Florida authority is § 903.046(2)(f), together with rule 3.131. The court must consider “[t]he source of funds used to post bail or procure an appearance bond, particularly whether the proffered funds, real property, property, or any proposed collateral or bond premium may be linked to or derived from the crime alleged to have been committed or from any other criminal or illicit activities.” And: “The burden of establishing the noninvolvement in or nonderivation from criminal or other illicit activity of such proffered funds . . . falls upon the defendant or other person proffering them to obtain the defendant’s release.”

Two practical consequences. The burden sits on whoever is putting up the money, not on the State — so a family member who posts a bond should expect to document where it came from. And the statute reaches the premium and any collateral, not merely the face amount of the bond.

Do not confuse this case with Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934) — the well-known United States Supreme Court substantive due process decision about price regulation. Florida opinions cite both, and they have nothing to do with each other.

Whether a hold is lawful at all — a district split

Considering the source of funds when setting bail is uncontroversial. Detaining someone who is otherwise able to post the bond already set, pending a source-of-funds inquiry, is a different thing — and the districts disagree about it.

Second District — not authorized Casiano v. State, 241 So. 3d 219, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)	“[U]nder our state’s constitution, Florida courts lack authority to detain accuseds for the purpose of inquiring into the source of funds used to post bail.” Continuing to hold an accused who has posted the bail set at first appearance “is tantamount to pretrial detention, which may only be ordered after proceedings on a proper motion for pretrial detention filed by the State.” Habeas granted.
Fifth District — agrees Sparrow v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)	Struck a sua sponte Nebbia hold imposed at first appearance — but without prejudice to the State filing a proper motion under rule 3.131(d) or rule 3.132.
Fourth District — inquiry yes, detention no Parrino v. Bradshaw, 972 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)	A first appearance court may consider the State’s motion for a source-of-funds hearing. Judge Warner, concurring: any such inquiry “is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the bail set is sufficient to secure the defendant’s appearance, not to deny him pretrial release.”
Third District — relief denied on its facts Snell v. Junior (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)	Petition denied where the trial court framed the inquiry as a condition of posting rather than detention, said it would have set a far higher bond otherwise, and the defendant declined to present any source-of-funds information at all.

Two practice points follow. A hold imposed on the court’s own motion, over objection, with no motion from the State, is the weakest version and the one that has been struck. And the objection worth preserving is the one made in Casiano — that what is really happening is pretrial detention without the procedure that section 907.041 and the rules require.

Once legitimacy is shown, the hold must come off

In Jenkins v. State, No. 3D24-1998 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 2, 2024), bond was set at $45,000 with a Nebbia hold and later reduced to $24,000. The defendant’s mother paid the 10% premium out of her social security check and savings; the bond company verified her income and accepted the risk. The trial court nonetheless refused to lift the hold — reasoning that the mother could not realistically repay the promissory note, and that the bond company’s willingness to write it without collateral suggested “potential fraud.”

The Third District granted habeas corpus and ordered the defendant released immediately on the posted bond. Once the record showed the funds used to pay the premium were legitimate, the purpose of Nebbia was satisfied. The indemnitor’s capacity to repay the bond company, and the court’s suspicion of the bond company’s business practices, were not the inquiry.

Vehicle and standard. “A petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle to challenge an order of pretrial detention or release.” Hodges v. State, 327 So. 3d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). Bail and the conditions attached to pretrial release are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Martinez v. Jones, 348 So. 3d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Read § 903.046 →  |  Read § 903.011 →

← Bond and Pretrial Release in Florida