CADY, Justice.
In this appeal, we consider whether the imposition of cash only bail violates the Iowa Constitution. We conclude that it does not, and affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On August 10, 2001, Des Moines police arrested Tonya Briggs after she propositioned an undercover police officer. Briggs was later charged with prostitution, marking the fourth time she had been charged with the same offense in less than a year. She made an initial appearance on August 11 and, after her bond was reviewed, was released on $6500 bond “cash/surety” pending her arraignment on September 24. She posted bail on August 19 with the assistance of a local bail bond company.
Briggs did not appear for her arraignment on September 24. This prompted the district court to issue a bench warrant for her arrest. The warrant set bond at $6500 “CASH.” Briggs eventually appeared for arraignment and her bond was [575]*575continued, “at 6,500 — cash only,” pending her pretrial conference and trial.
Before the date of her pretrial conference arrived, Briggs filed an application for bond review. She argued she “is guaranteed the right to reasonable bail by the Fourteenth Amendment [of the United States Constitution] and by Article I, Section[s] 12 [and] 17 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” Following a hearing on her application the district court denied the request. It observed,
[the] [p]urpose of a bond is to ensure the defendant’s presence on court dates and also to ensure protection of the public. Based on the defendant’s criminal history and the fact that she did fail to appear for her arraignment in this case, the Court does find that $6,500 cash only is reasonable to ensure her presence and to ensure the protection of the public from further criminal activity.
Immediately after the denial of the application, Briggs signed a waiver of jury trial and stipulation to a trial on the minutes of testimony on the prostitution charge. She was found guilty and agreed to waive her right to file a motion in arrest of judgment, allowing for her immediate sentencing to a period of incarceration not to exceed two years. On November 20, Briggs filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence of the district court, alleging the district court’s restriction of her bail to “cash only” violated several constitutional provisions.
II. Standard of Review.
Ordinarily, we review a district court’s decisions related to bail for an abuse of discretion. State v. Kellogg, 534 N.W.2d 431, 433 (Iowa 1995). However, Briggs’ arguments implicate a number of constitutional provisions, making our review de novo. See id. at 434; see also Klouda v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 642 N.W.2d 255, 260 (Iowa 2002).
III. Preservation of Error and Mootness.
The State . contends that Briggs failed to preserve error on her constitutional claims and that her conviction for prostitution based on the minutes of testimony in her case made her claims moot and no longer justiciable before this court. We agree with the State in part on one of these issues.
In her motion for bond review in the district court, Briggs alleged the imposition of cash only bail impinged on a constitutional right derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On appeal, she alleges a violation arising out of the “excessive bail” clause of the Eighth Amendment. See U.S. Const, amend. 8. The State argues Briggs failed to cite the Eighth Amendment in presenting her initial arguments in the district court, and this failure constituted a waiver of any such claim on appeal. We agree.
Several principles can be stated in relation to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Willson v. City of Des Moines, 386 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Iowa 1986) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 337, 106 S.Ct. 662, 677-78, 88 L.Ed.2d 662, 672 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring)). The Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is the gateway through which the guarantees of most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the actions of individual states and state actors. See id. Thus, the provisions of the Eighth Amendment — as portions of the Bill of Rights— could potentially apply to this controversy via the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment has other applications, including the extension of due process rights to all citizens. See id. In [576]*576some fashion, each of these principles may be applicable to Briggs’ constitutional claim, and may have influenced the method by which her claim was put before the district court.
Yet, as a result of the method by which her claim was actually presented, it is impossible to say precisely what federal constitutional claim Briggs presented to the district court and whether that same claim is being reasserted on appeal. The clearest indicator of this confusion is Briggs’ failure to mention the Eighth Amendment in the district court (although mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment) while premising her federal constitutional claim on the Eighth Amendment (without discussing the Fourteenth Amendment) on appeal. We could infer that Briggs attempted to argue an “excessive bail” claim arising from the Eighth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment in the district court, yet this is far from clear given the limited argument on this issue. We could also just as easily conclude that her initial allegation of a violation arising from the Fourteenth Amendment was premised on due process guarantees.1 Yet, such a claim is far different than arguing — as she does on appeal — a violation of the Eighth Amendment. In short, we believe this confusion is indicative of the failure to properly preserve error on a claimed violation of a federal constitutional right relating to cash only bail. Thus, we agree with the State that Briggs has failed to preserve error on this portion of her claim.
On the other hand, we do believe she preserved error on her state constitutional claims. A more intriguing question, however, is whether this controversy is moot and no longer justiciable in light of Briggs’ waiver and stipulation and the district court’s determination of her guilt. As a rule, we do not decide appeals in which “the issue becomes nonexistent or academic and, consequently, no longer involves a justiciable controversy.” State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002). However, an exception to this rule exists for those cases presenting “issues of broad public importance likely to recur.” Id. Briggs’ arguments based on the propriety of her bail became moot after she waived her jury trial and was found guilty. Any decision we issue relating to cash only bail will have no further effect on her at this point in time. To determine whether her claim should still be considered, we look to four factors:
(1) the private or public nature of the issue; (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication to guide public officials in their future conduct; (3) the likelihood of the recurrence of the issue; and (4) the likelihood the issue will recur yet evade appellate review.
Id. After considering these factors, we conclude that we should entertain this controversy despite it being moot.
Questions resting on the nature and propriety of cash only bail are of a pressing public interest. The imposition of cash only bail is a regular occurrence in our district courts. The constitutional implications of this form of bail are of great relevance for members of the public, the bar, and the judiciary. The need to provide guidance on this issue is manifest. Moreover, in the absence of authoritative guidance, it is highly likely this issue will recur, potentially resulting in varied and inconsistent interpretations of important [577]*577constitutional provisions. Finally, although it is conceivable that this issue could reach us under circumstances that would not involve a moot controversy, we believe this issue is highly likely to recur yet evade our review. For all of these reasons, we believe this is one of the exceptional circumstances in which our review is proper even in light of the mootness of the underlying controversy. We turn now to our consideration of the core issue presented by this appeal.
IV. Bailable by Sufficient Sureties.
Briggs argues that the intersection of two provisions of the Iowa Constitution prevents the imposition of cash only bail. Primary of these two is article I, section 12, which provides:
No person shall after acquittal, be tried for the same offence. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable, by sufficient sureties, except for capital of-fences where the proof is evident, or the presumption great.
Iowa Const, art. I, § 12 (emphasis added). In Briggs’ estimation, the “sufficient sureties” clause of section 12 precludes any bail option that prevents unfettered access to a surety. Thus, she argues, the sufficient sureties clause, combined with the “excessive bail” clause of article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution, bars the imposition of cash only bail. Iowa Const, art. I, § 17 (“Excessive bail shall not be required; excessive fines shall not be imposed, and cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted.”1' (Emphasis added.)). Briggs asserts that this interpretation is consistent with and commanded by the language of the Iowa Constitution, especially in light of that language’s meaning at the time of our constitution’s drafting.
It is necessary to note at the outset the full context in which the district court’s decisions related to bail were made. Although Briggs correctly cites the two constitutional provisions on bail, she pays little heed to the statutory provisions of the Iowa Code, which also play an important role in any bail analysis. As the State indicates, the district court acted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 811 of the Iowa Code — which describe the operation of the bail process — in setting Briggs’ bail. See Iowa Code §§ 811.1-.12. Most importantly, Briggs’ bail was apparently considered and reconsidered in light of the provisions of Iowa Code section 811.2.2
[578]*578The presence and operation of these statutory bail provisions forces us to re-frame the argument Briggs presents. Although her challenge is focused on the district court’s decision denying her application for bond review, the bail questions before the court arose in the context of the Iowa Constitution and Iowa Code section 811.2. Because Briggs challenges a bail determination resting on a statutory provision, she carries the heavy burden of rebutting the presumption that the statute is constitutional. State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 200 (Iowa 2002). Accordingly, she “must negate every reasonable basis upon which the court could hold the statute constitutional” and “show beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] statute violates the constitution.” Id.
To determine whether Iowa Code section 811.2 and, in turn, the decisions of the district court violate the constitution, we must first determine the actual meaning of the sufficient sureties clause. Our polestar in this analysis is the intent of the framers of our constitution. Howard v. Schildberg Constr. Co., 528 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 1995); see also Edge v. Brice, 253 Iowa 710, 718, 113 N.W.2d 755, 759 (1962) (noting the framers’ intent that constitutional provisions “endure for an extended future period”). First and foremost, “[w]e give the words used by the framers their natural and commonly-understood meaning.” Howard, 528 N.W.2d at 553. However, we may also “examine the constitutional history and consider ‘the object to be attained or the evil to be remedied as disclosed by the circumstances at the time of adoption.’ ” Id. (quoting Redmond v. Ray, 268 N.W.2d 849, 853 (Iowa 1978)).
As both parties indicate, any attempt to give the words of the sufficient sureties clause “their natural and commonly-understood meaning” is impeded by the changing understanding of this terminology from the time of our constitution’s drafting to the present. Id. Although an interpretation that incorporates modern understandings of the terms is possible, we believe it is necessary to examine our constitutional history to properly gauge the intent of the framers in including this clause. See id. This requires an abbreviated review of the history of bail, the role of sureties in the bail system, and our constitution. At the intersection of these histories, the meaning and purpose of the sufficient sureties clause is revealed. .
1. “Sufficient Sureties” in Historical Perspective.
It is generally accepted that the concept of bail arose in medieval England as a method by which feudal sheriffs could, at their discretion, release prisoners from squalid local jails while they waited for traveling judges to arrive in the area and conduct any necessary trials. Bail: An Ancient Practice Reexamined, 70 Yale [579]*579L.J. 966, 966 (1961) [hereinafter Yale article]; Ronald L. Goldfarb, Ransom: A Critique of the American Bail System 23-24 (1965); Daniel J. Freed & Patricia M. Wald, Bail in the United States 1 (1964); see also June Carbone, Seeing Through the Emperor’s New Clothes: Rediscovery of Basic Principles in the Administration of Bail, 34 Syracuse L.Rev. 517, 519-21 (1983). But see Goldfarb at 6, 21-23 (noting other possible origins of bail). A prisoner’s release was often conditioned on his or her delivery into the hands of a surety, a responsible third-party known to the sheriff and the prisoner, who guaranteed the presence of the accused for any further court proceedings. Freed & Wald at 1; Jonathan Drimmer, When Man Hunts Man: The Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in the American Criminal Justice System, 33 Hous. L.Rev. 731, 745 (1996). If the surety failed to deliver the accused at the appropriate time, he became personally responsible for providing some recompense to the state. Freed & Wald at 1; Yale article at 966. In the beginning, the surety was seen as literally standing in the place of the prisoner, thus permitting the state to punish the surety in the same way it would have punished the absent prisoner. Drimmer, 33 Hous. L.Rev. at 744 n. 60; see also Carbone, 34 Syracuse L.Rev. at 520. Bail guarantees linked to monetary or property forfeiture were not conceived of initially and only developed over time. See Freed & Wald at 1.
The medieval bail system sustained itself by serving the interrelated interests of the state, the prisoner, and the surety. The state avoided the costs of jailing a prisoner, forfeiting direct supervision for a guarantee that the prisoner would be returned at the appropriate time. The prisoner gained temporary freedom, supervision by an individual often of their own choosing, and the tantalizing opportunity to “skip” bail and avoid punishment. As a counterbalance to the threat of physical or monetary forfeiture, sureties were granted wide-ranging powers to ensure the accused remained under their control. Unfortunately, the system was rife with corruption, characterized by inconsistent application, and often harsh in its outcomes. See Carbone, 34 Syracuse L.Rev. at 323-24; Goldfarb at 26.
In an attempt to alleviate these problems, the bail system’s precepts were codified and regulated by the Statute of Westminster in 1275. Carbone, 34 Syracuse L.Rev. at 523-24. While the Statute codified problematic contemporary bail practices, it also provided the first standardization of those practices and allowed for the bail system to be uniformly administered for the first time. Id.; Yale article at 966. It accomplished this in part by specifying “the conditions under which pretrial release was permissible” and “limiting] the power of the sheriff to determining sufficient security in each case, a power subsequently transferred to justices of the peace.” Yale article at 966. It also provided “a rudimentary recognition of a right to bail for at least that small class of prisoners whom the local sheriff’ was now required to allow to be bailed. Carbone, 34 Syracuse L.Rev. at 523. Each of these concepts would be restated and reapplied over ensuing centuries; but remained at the core of nearly all bail systems.3 See id. at 527-33.
[580]*580When the first English colonists arrived in America in the seventeenth century, they brought the bail system with them. Id. at 529. However, they were largely disenchanted “with the confusing and conflicting categories of the [Statute of Westminster]- and colonial constitutions forged a new definition of the right to bail.” Id.; see• also Goldfarb at 26-27 (describing the subsequent evolution of some of the reforms generated by the Statute of Westminster).. .Importantly, the first constitutive documents of the colonies, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) and the Pennsylvania Constitution (1682), each included mandatory bail provisions with a “sufficient sureties” clause. Carbone, 34 Syracuse L.Rev. at 530-32. The Pennsylvania provision was later incorporated into the state’s first post-independence constitution, providing a model for other state constitution drafters to follow. See id. at 532; see also Yale article at 977 app. (listing state constitutions containing a sufficient sureties clause).
At the same time, the dramatic expansion of the colonial population and the seemingly limitless frontier beyond the colonies’ borders provoked some necessary alterations to the way the system had traditionally functioned. Individuals’ ties to their local community became increasingly attenuated; most colonists were, by nature, new to their communities and arrived with limited or non-existent connections to their fellow citizens. Drimmer, 33 Hous. L.Rev. at 748^49. These factors made it difficult for a sheriff to “judge the trustworthiness of sureties and defendants based on personal knowledge.” Id. at 748. Although sureties in England had utilized monetary and property based guarantees, the colonial bail system soon became dependent on them as a substitute for personal surety. Moreover, this dependence created a business opportunity, and “by the mid-nineteenth century, the personal surety system had evolved into a commercial bond system, with bondsmen charging fees to serve as sureties.” Id. at 749; see also Peggy M. Tobolowsky & James F. Quinn, Drug-Related Behavior as a Predictor of Defendant Pretrial Misconduct, 25 Tex. Tech L.Rev. 1019, 1019 n. 2 (1994) (“During the nineteenth century, a commercial or professional bondsman system gradually replaced the personal surety system.”); Freed & Wald at 3. Coincidentally, it was during this same era that the citizens of the territory of Iowa approved our first constitution and Iowa was admitted as a state.
2. “Sufficient Sureties” in the Iowa Constitution(s).
The bail system had been in operation for centuries before the first settlers of the Iowa territory arrived from Illinois in the early 1830s.4 See James Alton James, [581]*581Constitution and Admission of Iowa Into the Union, Stud, in Hist. & Pol. Sci., July 1900, at 9. In the interim between settlement and admission as a state, the territory operated under four constitutive documents: the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Organic Law of Michigan, the Organic Law of Wisconsin, and, finally,' the Organic Law of Iowa. Each of these documents applied to the settler population of Iowa, although the Northwest Ordinance provided the baseline statement of law from which each organic law made territory-specific deviations. None of these documents included a sufficient sureties clause, although article 2 of the Northwest Ordinance contemplated a right to bail, providing, in part: “All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great.” Northwest Ordinance, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50 (1789).
The sufficient sureties clause eventually entered our constitutional lexicon when the delegates to our state’s first constitutional convention met to draft our first constitution in October 1844. Unfortunately, no comment is recorded in relation to the clause in the scant records remaining from the convention. See Fragments of the Debates of the Iowa Constitutional Conventions of 1811 and 18⅛6 (Benjamin F. Shambaugh ed., 1900) [hereinafter 1844/46 Debates]. The committee charged with drafting a bill of rights delivered a draft in which the clause was present, and the clause remained in the constitution eventually presented to the people for ratification. See id. at 24-25, 34-43, 162. Moreover, through thirteen years of turmoil over ratification and two subsequent revisions of our constitution, the clause remained unchanged and, from all indications, uncommented upon.5 See id.; The Debates of the Constitutional Convention 97-226 (1857) [hereinafter 1857 Debates] (providing a transcript of the debate over revisions to the Bill of Rights of the 1844/46 constitution).
3. The Meaning of the Sufficient Sureties Clause.
The gradual emergence of the sufficient sureties clause and the very limited record of its eventual inclusion in our constitution requires us to draw our conclusions on its meaning and application from the historical development of the bail system and other contextual indicators of its meaning. Ultimately, we believe the core purpose of the clause was to guarantee a bailable individual access to a surety of some form. However, a number of factors [582]*582leads us to conclude that the framers did not intend that such access be unfettered or tied specifically to a commercial bonding process.
The strongest support for our conclusions rests on the language of the clause itself in historical perspective. We believe the framers were at least familiar with the history of the bailing process and the role of surety in that process. Moreover, we know that the framers were familiar with the provisions of other constitutive documents and regularly referenced them in the course of debating drafts of our constitution. See, e.g., 1844/46 Debates at 35, 40, 45; 1857 Debates at 98 (realizing the convention was to debate the report on the Bill of Rights, one delegate “began to compare our Bill of Rights with the Bill of Rights in the constitutions of other States,” noting, “I suppose that was the reason why these constitutions were given to us, that we might have the opportunity of making these comparisons.”). These factors indicate that the framers were conscious of the historical lineage of the words they chose and meant what they said: “[a]ll persons shall ... be bailable, by sufficient sureties,” subject to some exceptions. Iowa Const, art. I, § 12 (emphasis added). We believe this was a clear creation of a right to access a surety of some form. However, this language does not indicate that the framers intended that a person should be bailable by any surety without limit.
To the contrary, the framers chose an explicit limitation on access to a surety by using the word sufficient in the sufficient sureties clause. By including this qualification for a surety, the framers carved out a measure of discretion for the person overseeing the bailing process. This was consistent with the historical approach to sureties. See Yale article at 966 (noting that one of the innovations of the Statute of Westminster was its limitation on “the power of the sheriff to determining sufficient security in each case, a power subsequently transferred to justices of the peace”). Moreover, we believe this investment of discretion with the judicial officer was part of a quid pro quo for a bailable individual that reflected the historical relationship between the state, the prisoner, and the surety.
Our framers chose to provide a limited right to bail in the Iowa Constitution, and provided some protection for this right in that a sufficient surety could bail an accused individual. In exchange, the framers created a potential exception by which the state could retain oversight over this process. Ultimately, this trade off served what has long been acknowledged to be the primary purpose of bail: assuring á defendant’s appearance in court. See Ex Parte Milburn, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 704, 709, 9 L.Ed. 280, 282 (1835); State v. Cain, 608 N.W.2d 793, 796 (Iowa 2000); State v. Costello, 489 N.W.2d 735, 737 (Iowa 1992); State v. Zylstra, 263 N.W.2d 529, 531 (Iowa 1978); see also Rendel v. Mummert, 106 Ariz. 233, 474 P.2d 824, 828 (1970); People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 806 (1966) (“Sufficient, as used in the [Illinois] constitution, means sufficient to accomplish the purpose of bail, not just the ability to pay in the event of a ‘skip.’ ”). The defendant was given a right to be bailed, subject to the state’s analysis of a surety’s sufficiency to provide adequate recompense if the prisoner did not show for his judicial proceedings. By allowing a court to judge the sufficiency of the surety, the court was also permitted to judge — implicitly—the sufficiency of the surety’s interest in making sure the prisoner was present for further court proceedings'. Yet, no part of this process dictates unfettered access to a surety for a prisoner. In fact, unfettered access would be contrary to the language [583]*583of our constitution and, indeed, the long history of the bail system’s development and operation.
We are also confident that the framers did not intend to favor one particular method of surety — commercial bonding— by inclusion of the sufficient sureties clause. The historical record bears out that the concept of commercial bonding was emerging around the time of our constitution’s framing. This emergence brought to light a new concept that deviated from the traditional methods of personal, monetary, or property surety that featured highly personalized contact between the state, the prisoner, and the surety. While it is possible that our framers had both traditional and commercialized surety in mind when drafting the sufficient sureties clause, we do not believe the traditional form of surety had been fully eclipsed nor was the commercial form truly ascendant. At most, our framers had both forms in mind.6 To conclude the sufficient sureties clause extends an unfettered right to a commercial bail bondsmen contradicts the language of our constitution as well as historical reality.
Iowa Code section 811.2 permits a district court judge to set cash only bail if such bail will best guarantee the accused’s further presence for necessary judicial proceedings. See Iowa Code § 811.2(l)(d), (e). In light of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that this is permissible under the sufficient sureties clause of the Iowa Constitution so long as the accused is permitted access to a surety in some form.7 However, if the accused shows that the bail determination absolutely bars his or her utilization of- a surety of some form, a court is constitutionally bound to accommodate the accused’s predicament.
Finally, we believe it is possible that a cash only bond could be found unconstitutional under the excessive bah clause of article I, section 17 of the Iowa [584]*584Constitution. However, we do not believe the excessive bail clause combines with the sufficient sureties clause so as to automatically prevent cash only bail. Instead, we believe the excessive bail clause works with the sufficient sureties clause to protect the interests of the prisoner in the interrelationship between the state, the prisoner, and the surety. Thus, it is conceivable that the use of cash only bail could violate the excessive bail clause even though its use does not automatically violate the sufficient sureties clause.
V. Application to Briggs’ Appeal.
Briggs claims the imposition of cash only bail in her case has violated both the sufficient sureties and excessive bail clauses. However, she presented no evidence to show that she was absolutely precluded from accessing a surety of some form. Instead, her allegations appear to center on the denial of access to a commercial bail bond. As we concluded above, there is no absolute right-to such access. Briggs has made no claim that she could not otherwise find a sufficient surety. Under other circumstances, we would, perhaps, remand this issue to the district court to determine whether Briggs’ access to a surety was completely precluded. However, Briggs’ claim is moot, and any further remand on this issue would be an unwarranted and unnecessary waste of judicial resources.
We also conclude that Briggs’ allegation that her cash only bail was excessive is unavailing. We do not often have the opportunity to consider our excessive bail clause. However, when we do have such an opportunity, the similarity between our clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive bail “permits us to look to the interpretations by the United States Supreme Court for guidance in interpreting our own clause.” State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541, 547 (Iowa 2000). The Court’s clearest statement on the federal excessive bail clause came in its observation that “[t]he only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the Government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 754, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2105, 95 L.Ed.2d 697, 713 (1987). A consideration of this limitation requires a comparison between “the interest the Government seeks to protect” and the method by which it is being protected. Id.
Iowa Code section 811.2 vests the determination of the appropriate form of bail in the discretion of the district court. Iowa Code § 811.2. The court’s determination is guided by the necessity of “reasonably as-surfing] the appearance of the person for trial or deferral of judgment and [guaranteeing] the safety of other persons.” Id. § 811.2(1). These purposes are accomplished by considering a number of factors in setting bail, including the nature of the defendant’s offense, prior record of criminal activity, and adherence to any other bail requirements imposed by the district court in the past or present. See id. § 811.2(2).
Briggs stood accused of prostitution for the fourth time within a single year. The district court at first permitted her to be bailed by commercial bond, but Briggs abused that opportunity by “skipping” bail and failing to appear for her arraignment. After Briggs appeared for arraignment and the district court set her bail at cash alone Briggs challenged the court’s decision by an application for bond review. In reviewing that application and refusing to alter the bail amount and method of satisfaction, it is clear that the district court considered the purpose of bail and the interests the government sought to protect. Moreover, the method by which the [585]*585state protected that interest — bail set at $6500 cash — was reasonably related to those interests. We conclude that Briggs’ bail was not excessive.
VI. Conclusion.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decisions related to bail as well as its judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except CARTER, J., LAVORATO, C.J., and TERNUS, J„ who dissent.