Bye Bye 4th amendment!!

[theturtle06]

Bail enforcement does not need a warrant. Private contract, no state action.

There are some very interesting law review articles on this:

47 Drake L. Rev. 877 (1998-1999)

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

Patrick, Andrew DeForest. 1999. "Running from the Law: Should Bounty Hunters Be Considered State Actors and Thus Subject to Constitutional Restraints?" Vanderbilt Law Review 52

Further, why do the subject on Cops always open the door? If you want to talk to cops, do it through a closed door.

Aside, I saw the mandatory item for fringies--a school bus. I assume that was for burial later.

He may not need a warrant by law but I simply don't understand how this is NOT trespassing. If he is a bail enforcement officer, then isn't he just a normal citizen with a job title? You say he is not an agent of the state/union. Ok, so that's established. That makes him just a private contractor? Is he afforded the ability to freely enter and search any home where he suspects a bail-runner to be? I ask because I am unclear, and you seem to have an understanding of the topic at hand. She did not formally grant them permission to enter her house, and in fact she did the opposite (denied entrance to her house) repeatedly.

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.

So these agreements in place between a bailee and the bail bondsman supersede the law of the land?

ETA - adding this for clarity. I understand that if you sign a contract that waives your rights, you are SOL. If the contract, signed by both parties, allowed the bounty hunter to search the household of the direct family of the bailee, then the contract would win out. That I understand. But would this contract extend to allow the bounty hunter to enter and search any household where he has a reasonable suspicion that the bailee is there? [hypothetical]Lets say this lady was not the one securing the bond, but was related to the bailee and lived a couple hours away. She is estranged from the bailee.[/hypothetical] Would the contract allow the bounty hunter to legally enter? I don't understand how that can be legal...I am assuming it is not but I am not completely clear.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He may not need a warrant by law but I simply don't understand how this is NOT trespassing.

Seth and Jared are out at Broad Ripple having too much fun and get arrested by IMPD who are not impressed. Todd, who has the bail money, goes to Free Man Bonds and Tanning to hire an insurance agent to put up the rest of the surety bond.

Part of the insurance contract is that Seth and Jared consent to having an independent contractor of Free Man Bond & Tanning, let's pick any name at random, oh, say, Rhino the Mullet, gets to go into their home and grab Seth and Jared up and take them to court if they do not show.

That makes him just a private contractor? Is he afforded the ability to freely enter and search any home where he suspects a bail-runner to be?

Any home? Nope, but Seth and Jared's home? Yep.

Note this may be modified by state statute, some states require knock and announce, uniforms, etc.

So these agreements in place between a bailee and the bail bondsman supersede the law of the land?

These agreements are the law of the land.

Read the Taylor case. Heck, read the University of Houston article, I think it will answer your concerns.

 

[jbombelli]

He may not need a warrant by law but I simply don't understand how this is NOT trespassing. If he is a bail enforcement officer, then isn't he just a normal citizen with a job title? You say he is not an agent of the state/union. Ok, so that's established. That makes him just a private contractor? Is he afforded the ability to freely enter and search any home where he suspects a bail-runner to be? I ask because I am unclear, and you seem to have an understanding of the topic at hand. She did not formally grant them permission to enter her house, and in fact she did the opposite (denied entrance to her house) repeatedly.



So these agreements in place between a bailee and the bail bondsman supersede the law of the land?

ETA - adding this for clarity. I understand that if you sign a contract that waives your rights, you are SOL. If the contract, signed by both parties, allowed the bounty hunter to search the household of the direct family of the bailee, then the contract would win out. That I understand. But would this contract extend to allow the bounty hunter to enter and search any household where he has a reasonable suspicion that the bailee is there? [hypothetical]Lets say this lady was not the one securing the bond, but was related to the bailee and lived a couple hours away. She is estranged from the bailee.[/hypothetical] Would the contract allow the bounty hunter to legally enter? I don't understand how that can be legal...I am assuming it is not but I am not completely clear.

It's more than just a job and a title. A Bail Agent, along with his assignees, derives certain powers from the constitution and various state laws, and the contract between the defendant and the bail agent, that police officers, being actual representatives of government, don't. Although it's been a while since I've been around this (like 20 years), and I think I recall hearing the law may have changed between then and now... at that time they DID ABSOLUTELY have the authority to kick in almost any door they wanted if they had good reason to believe their fugitive was behind it. And the guys I knew always had a copy of an arrest warrant/order to produce the defendant, and a copy of the bail revocation order/forfeiture order, or whatever the hell those documents were called. And there wasn't a cop in the land that would stop them as long as they had those documents and had reason to believe their guy was on the other side of some door.

And the guys I knew always called the police first, to let them know what was up, before they kicked in any doors. They never kicked in just any old door... they did always make sure they had good reason to believe the guy was actually there first, usually by staking the place out, sometimes for several days, and seeing him. Also, you'd be amazed how many people in the world would sell out their own brother for $100, or tell you right where he is so his parents don't lose their home (collateral for the bond).

They used to say "if you don't want us kicking in your door, and sticking shotguns in your faces, then don't harbor fugitives."

 

[jbombelli]

He may not need a warrant by law but I simply don't understand how this is NOT trespassing. If he is a bail enforcement officer, then isn't he just a normal citizen with a job title? You say he is not an agent of the state/union. Ok, so that's established. That makes him just a private contractor? Is he afforded the ability to freely enter and search any home where he suspects a bail-runner to be? I ask because I am unclear, and you seem to have an understanding of the topic at hand. She did not formally grant them permission to enter her house, and in fact she did the opposite (denied entrance to her house) repeatedly.



So these agreements in place between a bailee and the bail bondsman supersede the law of the land?

ETA - adding this for clarity. I understand that if you sign a contract that waives your rights, you are SOL. If the contract, signed by both parties, allowed the bounty hunter to search the household of the direct family of the bailee, then the contract would win out. That I understand. But would this contract extend to allow the bounty hunter to enter and search any household where he has a reasonable suspicion that the bailee is there? [hypothetical]Lets say this lady was not the one securing the bond, but was related to the bailee and lived a couple hours away. She is estranged from the bailee.[/hypothetical] Would the contract allow the bounty hunter to legally enter? I don't understand how that can be legal...I am assuming it is not but I am not completely clear.

It's more than just a job and a title. A Bail Agent, along with his assignees, derives certain powers from the constitution and various state laws that police officers, being actual representatives of government, don't. Although it's been a while since I've been around this (like 20 years), and I think I recall hearing the law may have changed between then and now... at that time, again if I recall correctly, they DID ABSOLUTELY have the authority to kick in almost any door they wanted if they had good reason to believe their fugitive was behind it. And the guys I knew always had a copy of an arrest warrant/order to produce the defendant, and a copy of the bail revocation order/forfeiture order, or whatever the hell those documents were called. And there wasn't a cop in the land that would stop them as long as they had those documents and had reason to believe their guy was on the other side of some door.

And the guys I knew always called the police first, to let them know what was up, before they kicked in any doors. They never kicked in just any old door... they did always make sure they had good reason to believe the guy was actually there first, usually by staking the place out, sometimes for several days, and seeing him. Also, you'd be amazed how many people in the world would sell out their own brother for $100, or tell you right where he is so his parents don't lose their home (collateral for the bond).

They used to say "if you don't want us kicking in your door, and sticking shotguns in your faces, then don't harbor fugitives."

 

[eldirector]

But, is it still consensual when they kick down the door and drag you out? That's what I've never quite understood. A contract does not allow someone to assault you, or trespass. If a young lady signs a contract consenting sex, but then says "no" when the time comes to deliver, collecting on the contract would still be rape.

Not that I'm worried about a bondsman collecting on ME. I'm more worried about them mistaking my address for the one on their bond. Heck, the post office can't even get that one right.

 

[dburkhead]

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

Okay, the Bounty Hunter is not a State actor. I get that. But then, if he's not a State Actor how is he not liable for little things like Trespass, Breaking and Entering (or whatever the equivalent crime is called in any particular jurisdiction), and so forth? Now the person for whom bond is posted can grant them permission, in the bail bond contract, in advance to come in to get them--I get that too--but only on their own property. Where do they get the authority--if they have it--to enter the property of a person not a party to that contract to retrieve the person for whom bond was posted?

If someone, call him George, posted bond for "Fred" and then Fred failed to show but someone claimed they saw George at my house, by what right could the Bounty Hunter come into my house without the permission of either myself or my wife without being chargeable for the illegal entry? I didn't sign that contract. And if Fred did jump bond, I can tell you right now (for purposes of this question) that he is not at my house so whoever made the claim was either mistaken or lying.

 

[jbombelli]

Okay, the Bounty Hunter is not a State actor. I get that. But then, if he's not a State Actor how is he not liable for little things like Trespass, Breaking and Entering (or whatever the equivalent crime is called in any particular jurisdiction), and so forth? Now the person for whom bond is posted can grant them permission, in the bail bond contract, in advance to come in to get them--I get that too--but only on their own property. Where do they get the authority--if they have it--to enter the property of a person not a party to that contract to retrieve the person for whom bond was posted?

If someone, call him George, posted bond for "Fred" and then Fred failed to show but someone claimed they saw George at my house, by what right could the Bounty Hunter come into my house without the permission of either myself or my wife without being chargeable for the illegal entry? I didn't sign that contract. And if Fred did jump bond, I can tell you right now (for purposes of this question) that he is not at my house so whoever made the claim was either mistaken or lying.

Again, he gets certain powers to do exactly that. But, he's going to make sure Fred is actually there before he just kicks in the door. Otherwise, he may very well end up in trouble for the entry and the pointing of guns. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. For that reason, if he has a clue, he's going to sit down the street in his van with his compadres and binoculars for a day or four, and act only after he SEES Fred. At THAT point, it no longer matters if YOU signed the contract. They have SEEN the guy going into your house, and are allowed to pursue him.

But again, I don't know if the law has changed in the last 20 years...

 

[dburkhead]

Again, he gets certain powers to do exactly that.

From whom does he get those powers? If from the State then how is he not a State actor?

But, he's going to make sure Fred is actually there before he just kicks in the door. Otherwise, he may very well end up in trouble for the entry and the pointing of guns.

If' he's breaking into my house, I don't much care hos sure he is of Fred's presence. Someone who kicks in the door of my house has a very short time to convince me that they are not someone I need to be shooting.

It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. For that reason, if he has a clue, he's going to sit down the street in his van with his compadres and binoculars for a day or four, and act only after he SEES Fred. At THAT point, it no longer matters if YOU signed the contract.

Please tell me how anyone signing a contract grants them powers to break into someone who didn't sign the contracts rights. What gives the parties of the of a contract the right to violate my property and threaten the people in my household?

They have SEEN the guy going into your house, and are allowed to pursue him.

And, let me guess they are not responsible for the damage they cause up to and including actual injury of people with whom they are not in a contractual relationship, right?

IMO, if they really had a clue, they would wait until Fred left to get him (that way they wouldn't be violating a third party's home--nor risking that the third party might actually act in self defense against what they might justifiably see as a home invasion). Or, if they've been sitting their with binoculars watching for Fred to enter and Fred doesn't cooperate by leaving, do they not then have evidence/testimony that can be used so that the police could, you know, get a warrant?

But again, I don't know if the law has changed in the last 20 years...

I really hope that I am misunderstanding what folk are saying the law allows bounty hunters. If the law really does allow that then so much the worse for the law. The line from Oliver Twist comes to mind.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like the deputies were in the wrong, per department policy. An unnamed number of lawyers also say they were in the wrong, as they did not have a search warrant, only (supposedly) an arrest warrant.

via Bakersfield Now

Various lawyers said an arrest warrant gives law enforcement agents the authority to make an arrest but a search warrant is needed to search a home.

These rules were established in the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against illegal search and seizures, and Hills believes her Constitutional rights were violated.

“All of the officers involved we’d like to see them reprimanded,” Hills said.

There are a number of exceptions to the rule and according to lawyers, police would need probable cause to enter a home without a search warrant.

It is unclear as to whether there was probable cause because the video starts as the law enforcement agents approach the home.

Another issue is the cooperation between sheriffs and the bail bondsmen.

An official with the Kern County Sheriff’s Office says it has a policy in place that does not allow for sheriffs and bounty hunters to serve an arrest warrant together.

If bondsmen ask for assistance from the department, sheriffs are supposed to make the arrest by themselves, according to the sheriff’s official.

The video clearly shows sheriffs and bondsmen working together in searching the home.

Sheriffs say the matter is being investigated internally and state law prohibits them from commenting publicly.

More at the source.

 

[Hotdoger]

News article on the video : Sheriff's department launches internal investigation after deputies enter woman's home | KGET TV 17

 

[Ogre]

I'd say that if I was not a party to any bail contract between two others, and a mullet incorectly thought I was harboring that fugitive and then bashed through my door his head would be turned into a canoe....

 

[dburkhead]

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.

Thank you for that. I also have to give big kudos to the police officer who spoke in the panel discussion at the end of the film itself.

 

[leb1982]

Sorry to say but everything they did is legal, if they are looking for someone they hold the right to search that persons residence.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Sorry to say but everything they did is legal, if they are looking for someone they hold the right to search that persons residence.

Read the article. Even the Chief is saying that it looks like they are open to a lawsuit because of violations by the two officers.

These rules were established in the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against illegal search and seizures, and Hills believes her Constitutional rights were violated.

“All of the officers involved we’d like to see them reprimanded,” Hills said.

 

[dross]

I really hope that I am misunderstanding what folk are saying the law allows bounty hunters. If the law really does allow that then so much the worse for the law. The line from Oliver Twist comes to mind.

I'd like Kirk to weigh in, but it sounds like a situation where they may chase a fugitive into private property, and then enter that property, if the fugitive is actually there. In other words, their only defense against trespassing is that the fugitive was there. If he was not there, they would have just committed several criminal acts.

Kind of like the police being able to pursue a fleeing suspect into your house without a warrant if they saw him run into there.

I'm giving a guess here, I don't know if this is correct.

 

[level.eleven]

I'd like Kirk to weigh in, but it sounds like a situation where they may chase a fugitive into private property, and then enter that property, if the fugitive is actually there. In other words, their only defense against trespassing is that the fugitive was there. If he was not there, they would have just committed several criminal acts.

Kind of like the police being able to pursue a fleeing suspect into your house without a warrant if they saw him run into there.

I'm giving a guess here, I don't know if this is correct.

You think the bounty hunter would have the same level of immunity as the law enforcer? Honestly, I have never understood this whole bounty hunter concept. If they are granted permission to enforce their contracts in this manner, why can't I? It seems like banks (repo man) and bounty hunters operate in a grey area.

 

[jbombelli]

From whom does he get those powers? If from the State then how is he not a State actor?



If' he's breaking into my house, I don't much care hos sure he is of Fred's presence. Someone who kicks in the door of my house has a very short time to convince me that they are not someone I need to be shooting.



Please tell me how anyone signing a contract grants them powers to break into someone who didn't sign the contracts rights. What gives the parties of the of a contract the right to violate my property and threaten the people in my household?



And, let me guess they are not responsible for the damage they cause up to and including actual injury of people with whom they are not in a contractual relationship, right?

IMO, if they really had a clue, they would wait until Fred left to get him (that way they wouldn't be violating a third party's home--nor risking that the third party might actually act in self defense against what they might justifiably see as a home invasion). Or, if they've been sitting their with binoculars watching for Fred to enter and Fred doesn't cooperate by leaving, do they not then have evidence/testimony that can be used so that the police could, you know, get a warrant?



I really hope that I am misunderstanding what folk are saying the law allows bounty hunters. If the law really does allow that then so much the worse for the law. The line from Oliver Twist comes to mind.

He's not a state actor because he's not employed by the state. He may derive his authority from the law, and he may be helping the system by grabbing fugitives off the street, but that doesn't make him an agent of the government. He works for the bondsman, an insurance agent, who put himself financially on the line to guarantee the subject will appear for his court date. Paying 10% of the bond to the bail enforcement agents is a lot cheaper than paying 100% of the bond to the court.

As far as fighting them? You really need to understand that you are NOT allowed to use deadly force TO PROTECT A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE from being rearrested. You simply aren't. That doesn't change just because he's in your house. If the bail enforcement agents see him in your house, and come in, and you open fire, YOU WILL go to prison for a very, very long time. If you're lucky enough to live.

You see, many of those guys aren't stupid like Dog the Mullet. Some of them are serious, and professional. Some of them are ex-cops and ex-military. My old friends took the job, and their safety, very seriously. They didn't carry pepper spray; they carried shotguns and wore body armor, and there was usually 3-4 of them. So if you opened fire and hit one... the other three would kill you in a heartbeat. Then where would you be? Dead over a fugitive.

You can mince all you want about what the smart thing would have been to do... the fact remains they were (and may still be, maybe not, I don't know...) able to do that if they knew their guy was in your house. If you don't like it... don't harbor fugitives. That's the bottom line. If you're not in the habit of harboring fugitives from justice in your house, you really don't have to worry about it.

As far as specifically what statutes give them their authority... I don't know off-hand since I myself was never involved in it. I'm only telling you what I was told by both the bail bondsman and the enforcement agents when I was considering entering that line of work 20 years ago.

 

[SavageEagle]

Sorry to say but everything they did is legal, if they are looking for someone they hold the right to search that persons residence.

Everything they did was perfectly illegal. SHe didn't have a contract with the bail bondsman. Therefore they had NO right to come into her house. On top of that, they didn't produce a warrant. If they don't have a warrant in hand, they just violated the 4th Amendment.

Now, explain to me what was legal about what they did.

 

[SavageEagle]

You can mince all you want about what the smart thing would have been to do... the fact remains they were (may still be) able to do that if they knew their guy was in your house. If you don't like it... don't harbor fugitives. That's the bottom line.

No, the bottom line was that the woman wasn't harboring a fugitive. They came in anyway. So that's just fine and dandy?

 

[jbombelli]

You think the bounty hunter would have the same level of immunity as the law enforcer? Honestly, I have never understood this whole bounty hunter concept. If they are granted permission to enforce their contracts in this manner, why can't I? It seems like banks (repo man) and bounty hunters operate in a grey area.

Repo men are simply taking back what the LENDER owns, not the debtor. The debtor doesn't OWN it until he PAYS for it in full. The item itself is always listed as collateral for the debt, meaning if the debtor doesn't pay, the lender can legally seize the collateral. There is absolutely NO gray area there.

The bail enforcement agent is able to do what he does because, specifically, he's dealing with fugitives from justice who were bonded out of jail by a bondsman, and then failed to appear for their court date. If you want to enforce your contracts that way, become a bail bondsman and start bailing people out of jail.