Bye Bye 4th amendment!!

[level.eleven]

WW, there's a new movie that just came out that you must see. It's from the Cato Institute, entitled 10 Rules for Dealing with the Police.

I highly recommend it for you. I think it is just what you are looking for.

It's form the Flexyourrights.com guys. One of them used to be a Cato intern. The film isn't up on their site yet, but you can watch it here - a Cato event.

Film Premiere: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police

The Q&A and commentary is better than the film, imho. I thought the film was kind of light. Nothing new for anyone who...well you know.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

It's form the Flexyourrights.com guys. One of them used to be a Cato intern. The film isn't up on their site yet, but you can watch it here - a Cato event.

Film Premiere: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police

The Q&A and commentary is better than the film, imho. I thought the film was kind of light. Nothing new for anyone who...well you know.

thanks for the link.

 

[SavageEagle]

Fugitive recovery agents operate under a whole different set of rules. They don't use the same rules as the police. Because they aren't the police. When a person bonds out, he relinquinshes certain rights to the bondsman and his designated agents, along with the person who bonded them out. Don't like it? Don't hire a bondsman. But that's not to say there aren't idiots in that profession, because there are, just like any other profession.

I didn't see this asked or answered so here goes.

If a friend of mine screws up and gets locked up and some other friend bonds him out... say someone said this "friend" is holed up in my place but he lied. How does that give bounty hunters or bondsmen or police the right to disregard my 4th amendment rights and barge into my home? It doesn't. I've seen "Dog" do it a hundred times. I only watch cause my wife likes it. It's good he tries to help people, but at what cost. He just barges in on people's property because he SUSPECTS they might be there.

I'm sorry, but if someone came barging into my house like that it would not end well and I'd probably go to jail. I don't bond people out (unless it's my kids) and I don't harbor fugitives. That doesn't mean that this couldn't happen to me or you or anyone else. So if you think it's ok for them to do this to other people, then are you going to let them ransake your home too? It's ok if they do it to them, right?

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Not only will I not submit to unreasonable searches and seizures, I'm not likely under any threat save that of immediate death to submit to even a "reasonable" one. I'm not doing anything illegal or malicious, nor would I ever give anyone that opinion of myself in going about my business, so there's not even a shred of any cause upon which even the most foul and contrarian Statist could hope to use as an excuse for searching. Given that fact, any attempt to gain entry against my volition to any property where I am residing, whether I own it or not, will be taken as a hostile act against me and mine, and non-existent "god" save anyone who tries to use force to dissuade me to abandon that reality.

I think the same goes for most people here, though, as Ryan pretty well summarized.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How does that give bounty hunters or bondsmen or police the right to disregard my 4th amendment rights and barge into my home?

The police, no, they have to follow the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11. Police can always knock on your door. Here's a clue: don't open the door (I know the hillbillies always do on Cops, but don't do that).

Bounty Hunters are not state actors, they are agents of an insurance company. If you are really interested in bounty hunters, I recommend the University of Houston law review article that I cited earlier.

 

[451_Detonics]

I'm sorry opening a door is not permission to enter. If they do not have a search warrant they are breaking the law entering without permission...period. A bench warrant is not the same thing as a search warrant. As for the bail enforcement...if Dog busted into my house like I have seen on TV without cause he would likely get carried out.

The fact the deputy refuses to give his name points out the fact he knew he was in the wrong.

 

[XMil]

The police, no, they have to follow the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11. Police can always knock on your door. Here's a clue: don't open the door (I know the hillbillies always do on Cops, but don't do that).

Bounty Hunters are not state actors, they are agents of an insurance company. If you are really interested in bounty hunters, I recommend the University of Houston law review article that I cited earlier.

That's an interesting read. I suppose since technically, people on bail are being "held" for suspicion of committing a crime it's not TEOT4AAWKI(the end of the 4th amendment as we know it ).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

XMil, right, the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11 are not triggered by bounty hunters.

You or your baby mama go to the insurance company (the fat guy smoking the cigar at the desk) and give him 5K for your 50K surety bond. You read and sign the contract which holds that you must be in court when the court orders you to be there (it's a court order, not a suggestion). If you do not show, the insurance company can come and make you go.

You don't show. The fat, cigar-chomping dude now hires Dog the Mullet can now go find you. The Mullet doesn't need a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion as the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11 does not apply to a private insurance company.

Again I urge anyone interested in bounty hunters to read the University of Houston law review article as I believe it provides the best background:

Drimmer, Jonathan. 1996. "When Man Hunts Man: The Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in the American Criminal Justice System." Houston Law Review 33

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Now, some states have passed statutes regulating how bounty hunters must hunt. E.g. must knock and announce before going into a domicile, inter alia.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A bench warrant is not the same thing as a search warrant.

Correct, but if they have an arrest warrant, they can come in (depending on procedural proscriptions and warrant statutes of that state) and look for Bobby Lee or Cledus Lee or Ice Dog, inter alia.

Many people, especially the Fringers in the '90s, had this concept that their homes were surrounded by force fields that law enforcement could not cross . . . ever. I used to see this belief 15 years ago or so but it is re-surfacing now.

"I'd like to get some sleep before I travel / But if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in"

 

[smoking357]

Correct, but if they have an arrest warrant, they can come in (depending on procedural proscriptions and warrant statutes of that state) and look for Bobby Lee or Cledus Lee or Ice Dog, inter alia.

Many people, especially the Fringers in the '90s, had this concept that their homes were surrounded by force fields that law enforcement could not cross . . . ever. I used to see this belief 15 years ago or so but it is re-surfacing now.

"I'd like to get some sleep before I travel / But if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in"

One can post a revocation of that wacko idea the courts created of "implied license." Such a revocation removes any permission to enter and backs the cops to the nearest public way, in absence of a warrant. A violation of the sign is trespass.

It's truly disappointing that the Legislatures, be they controlled by either party, have not enacted laws defeating "implied license."

 

[451_Detonics]

Correct, but if they have an arrest warrant, they can come in (depending on procedural proscriptions and warrant statutes of that state) and look for Bobby Lee or Cledus Lee or Ice Dog, inter alia.

Only if it the person they are looking for has the address as his residence or the person on the warrant was seen entering the residence at the time the police enter, not because someone saw them go in a couple days ago. In other words they have to have probable cause to enter and just because I post bail for a buddy is not probable cause to search my house.

In the law, a requisite element of a valid search and seizure or of an arrest, which consists of the existence of facts and circumstances within one’s knowledge, that are sufficient to warrant the belief that a crime has been committed (in the context of an arrest) or that property subject to seizure is at a designated location (in the context of a search and seizure). Whether probable cause exists depends on the independent judgment of a “detached magistrate.”

As I stated if that Deputy thought it was a clean search he would have given his name...not just repeating I am a Deputy Sheriff. When asked he should have given name and shield number. And while the laws are lax on bounty hunters they cannot enter a house just because...they too have to have probable cause or they could go into any and every house on that block.

As an example someone calls the Dog because someone he is looking for was seen on your block, does this give him the right to force his way into your house to look for him? Of course not...for him to enter he has to see the suspect entering your house at the time of his entry.

 

[level.eleven]

"I'd like to get some sleep before I travel / But if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in"

Hey, I just changed my avatar yesterday!

 

[Roadie]

I will have to go back and watch the vid. I though the guy said "I am a federal agent, I dont need a warrant"...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I believe it is "bail enforcement agent". I'll watch too.

At 1:58 the guy with the monkey butt sez he is a "bail enforcement agent" and then says "under federal law" he doesn't need a warrant which is correct.

Again, the only troubling thing about this video to me is that the cops do not identify themselves as police while knocking. I mean, some fat guy without a uniform is in your window telling you to open the door but does not say he is with Kern County SD? Red alert.

 

[rambone]

The fat, cigar-chomping dude now hires Dog the Mullet can now go find you. The Mullet doesn't need a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion as the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11 does not apply to a private insurance company.

I've never really thought about this, and I don't see any good reason to still not follow the constitution and acquire warrants for any such searches. I don't think there should be conditions for when the constitution needs to be followed and when it can be ignored.

Being a bounty hunter must be pretty treacherous work. I would venture to say that the occupants of the homes they are "hunting" in would be justified in defending themselves from the intruder, no matter how long his mullet was.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As explained in Taylor, Dog the Mullet, pursuant to the Constitution, does not need a warrant in this case as the Mullet is not a governmental agent and that is following the Constitution.

Some states, ram, like our neighbors to the south have practically abolished bounty hunters. Other states put various restrictions on them.

If you don't have time now to read the University of Houston article, start here:

Bounty hunter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jdhaines]

I've never really thought about this, and I don't see any good reason to still not follow the constitution and acquire warrants for any such searches. I don't think there should be conditions for when the constitution needs to be followed and when it can be ignored.

Being a bounty hunter must be pretty treacherous work. I would venture to say that the occupants of the homes they are "hunting" in would be justified in defending themselves from the intruder, no matter how long his mullet was.

So, based on what you say here, if the mullet comes knocking on my door, then kicks it open and busts in with his giant fire extuinguisher size bear spray locked/loaded/and aiming it at me along with his junior staff of mullets, am I allowed to open fire? I could if anyone else forced entry like that. How would I know who they were or what they were doing?

 

[dross]

I think what's hanging you guys up is that the fugitive gave his consent for the bounty hunter to enter his property. Perhaps, I don't know, but perhaps the signer of the bond also gives permission for the bounty hunter to come on his property as well.

The bounty hunter can't break into somone else's home by force without a warrant and the police just because the suspect the fugitive is there.

If you trade permission to enter your home for money, and sign a document to that effect with a private entity, not the government, how can that violate the Constitution? As a private citizen, I cannot violate someone else's rights, only the government can violate your rights. If I violate your rights as a citizen, it's called assault, or kidnapping, or some other criminal offense. Rights can only be violated by the government, and rights violations requires the use of force or the threat of force, without consent.

 

[smoking357]

If you trade permission to enter your home for money, and sign a document to that effect with a private entity, not the government, how can that violate the Constitution?

As long as it's your home, and only you dwell there and only you have the capacity to allow access, then you might have the makings of a consensual entry.