State v. LeDoux, 770 N.W.2d 504, 515 (Minn. 2009). Moreover, the pending charges are only one factor district courts consider in setting bail; courts also consider the defendant's criminal history to assess his public-safety risk. Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.02, subds. 1, 2; see State v. McMains, 634 N.W.2d 733, 734 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that a court may consider public safety in setting amount of bail). Here, the pretrial release evaluation assigned Andersen a risk score of 96, primarily because of his extensive violent criminal history.
See Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.02, subd. 1 ("The [district] court must set money bail without other conditions on which the defendant may be released by posting cash or sureties."); State v. McMains, 634 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Minn. App. 2001) ("The district court erred in refusing to set monetary bail upon which appellant can obtain pretrial release without complying with nonmonetary conditions."). Second, we find problematic the district court's use of a preprinted conditional-release form. Use of such a form, especially one containing warrantless, suspicionless search conditions, makes it difficult to determine whether release conditions are being set based on the specific facts before the district court as Martin requires.
Minn. R.Crim. P. 6.02, subd. 1, requires the district court, in considering conditions of pretrial release, to set "monetary bail" without other conditions of release. Minn. Stat. § 169A.44, in conjunction with Minn. R.Crim. P. 6.02, subd. 1, requires district courts to set bail as either (1) the statutory maximum monetary bail, without additional conditions, or (2) a lower monetary bail amount with non-monetary conditions. State v. McMains, 634 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Minn.App. 2001). "By means of such alternative bail settings, the district court may comply with Minn. R.Crim. P. 6.02, subd. 1 as well as with the DWI bail statute, Minn.Stat. § 169A.44(b) [2000]."