authorities to facilitate the timely administration of justice. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d at 543. Here, appellant has not achieved or fostered any of the purposes of bail. Even though appellant believes defendant is in Toronto, appellant’s belief about defendant’s whereabouts does not demonstrate that appellant has in fact located defendant such that the government might be put in a position to secure his return. Cause, purpose, and length of the defendant’s absence Defendant’s willfulness or bad faith is attributable to the surety. Shet-sky, 239 Minn, at 471, 60 N.W.2d at 46. Under Minnesota law, even an untimely apprehension and return of defendant would not require that the forfeited bail bond be fully reinstated and discharged. See State v. Williams, 568 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn.App.1997) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 1997).
holding that doctrine of impossibility of performance did not apply so as to entitle surety to partial remission of forfeited bond holding that a suretys assistance in a defendants untimely return to custody does not mandate forgiveness of the penalty on a forfeited bail bond holding that a clear declaration of default is a precondition to a suretys liability under a performance bond holding time spent on electronic monitoring while on bail release does not constitute custody within meaning of sentencing credit statute recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest