Judge in Bluffton peeping tom case discusses bonds, electronic monitoring, discretion

Residents of a Bluffton community upset over the low bond assigned to a neighbor facing a peeping tom charge gathered Thursday night to ask why a higher bail wasn’t assigned and why a judge didn’t order electronic monitoring of the suspect.

The meeting, held with Bluffton Police Chief Joseph Manning, followed the arrest of Bret Holterman, 35, who was charged with the misdemeanor Monday in the Cypress Ridge community after he allegedly peered into an adolescent boy’s window around 10 p.m., according to a Bluffton Police Department report.

Judge Ned Tupper, who assigned the $5,000 bond, said Friday his decisions are guided by state law. Tupper also ordered Holterman not to go near or have any contact with the victim.

Holterman has a history of allegations involving inappropriate contact with children as well as several run-ins with law enforcement over the last two decades.

Tupper said Friday that he considers two factors when determining bond amounts and electronic monitoring:

▪  the defendant’s flight risk

▪  and the danger he or she poses to the community.

He declined to discuss Holterman’s case specifically but did talk generally about how he applies the law.

“What I do in some cases is (require) an additional condition of bond when I think that somebody might not be a danger to the community, but they may be a danger to the (alleged victim),” Tupper said.

In Holterman’s case, Tupper assigned a $5,000 bond and ordered the suspect to stay away from the complainant’s home and workplace. He also order Holterman to have no contact with the victim indirectly or directly, according to Beaufort County Court records.

Tupper said he rarely assigns electronic monitoring because it is expensive for the defendant. The decision to require such a device also depends on whether the alleged crime is violent in nature and on the severity of the charge.

Manning told residents during Thursday’s meeting that his department had recommended that Holterman be fitted with an electronic device that tracked his movements.

Tupper ruled that it was not warranted.

The judge said Friday he is not bound to follow electronic monitoring or bond amount requests made by a police department or prosecutor.

Instead, he said, he follows the Constitution and determines an appropriate bond amount for the charge based on time served if the suspect is convicted.

If a defendant violates the bond conditions, that bond may be revoked and the suspect could be held in content of court, Tupper said.

This story was originally published October 13, 2017 at 5:02 PM with the headline "Judge in Bluffton peeping tom case discusses bonds, electronic monitoring, discretion."