Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN)
https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

bond agent arrested for criminal trespassing
https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1091		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Kathy [ Sat 17 Sep 2005 14:02 ]
Post subject:  bond agent arrested for criminal trespassing
From the Saturday, September 10, 2005 Pueblo Chieftain...

"Arlene Marie Gallina, 52, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of first-degree trespassing. She is free on $5,000 bail."

According to the rumors, she was doing some BE work for a bondsman that she used to write for. He had called the parents (cosigners) on a skip and told them that he needed to have someone come talk to them about the bond. They agreed and Arlene went over. They let her come in and search. While she was searching, they called the cops. The skip was not found in the house. They reported that she had shoved her way in, yelling and threatening them.

Also according to rumors, the bond was originally set at $20K, but when she appeared in court, the Judge changed it to $5K cash. The Judge allegedly told her that she was "tired of you people thinking you are above the law." I have heard that Arlene's attorneys are "going after" the judge for her remarks. Not sure what that means. The Judge is Adele Anderson, and I do know that she hates bondsmen. Most of us have had some type of difficulty getting bonds released in her court.

I don't know any details, whether the parent's house was also the skip's residence or if he had given it as his residence on the bond. I don't know who is telling the truth. I don't know this bondswoman except by name, so I can't say if she has a history of such conduct.

I can't find any further news, which really surprises me. Usually the newspapers are all over something like this.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Author:  rex [ Sun 18 Sep 2005 06:47 ]
Post subject: 
Kathy,

I would like to compliment you with respect to how you conveyed the information on this thread.

You learned of an alleged incident, analyzed the alleged incident based on your training and experience, and presented the available information in an unbiased format.

As everyone may recall, Mr. Leland Chapman was involved in a street fight that was investigated and then dropped by The People after a tape of the incident was provided to The People.

I have enjoyed curb-side adjudication, a time or two, of fallacious allegations after pushing rewind and play as well.

Perhaps the use of video and audio should be standard SOP in the public domain?

I suspect that we would not be hearing of this matter, provided that the involved party acted within the confines of applicable law, had the initial knock & talk been documented?

As for the alleged statement by the judge hearing the matter: if confirmed, this may be an example of legislating from the bench versus interpreting law.

Rex
Author:  L.A.W. [ Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:10 ]
Post subject: 
As regards the tape of Leland Chapman being in a physical altercation exonerating him... the camera crew originally refused to give the tape to the police insisting they needed to send it to A&E first. 22 days later A&E provided the tape to the police.

I suggest A&E possibly edited the tape to eliminate Leland Chapman from any culpability in the fracas. A&E will undoubtedly attempt to prevent any negativity to their cash cow.

Just my opinion.
Author:  rex [ Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:26 ]
Post subject: 
Lance,

Your point is well taken.

I didn't know about the 22-day delay.

I have turned down various offers to do TV, as I insist on some degree of creative control over the end product--which is always denied.

Editing can make or break a movie or make a good BEA look like a buffoon and even eliminate the elements of a crime (in reference to the Leland footage), in my opinion.

In my situation, I have been called to meet a shift supervisor to discuss a knock & talk, been advised of allegations, hit rewind & play of unedited tape, and been cut loose with a "good luck and stay safe."

It's important to remember that I work in a very litigious (s/p?) state where law suits are filed for anything.

Rex
Author:  thebishopp [ Sun 18 Sep 2005 14:13 ]
Post subject: 
Those little wireless cameras t hat do both video and sound and look like a shirt button can be handy for that kind of stuff. They run a few hundred dollars these days with transmitter and receiver.
Author:  Kathy [ Mon 19 Sep 2005 08:23 ]
Post subject: 
Thank you, Rex.

Someone said that the initial conversation between the bondsman and the parents was recorded, but I have no facts to support that. I know the bondsman that wrote the bond, just didn't know about this when I saw him last week. I'll try to get info, at least what's available, and pass it on. With a couple of exceptions, we have usually had good rapport with the Pueblo PD and most of the judges. There is one particular officer and this one judge that consistently give all of us problems. She will wait until the forfeiture date, even after in some cases to rule on a motion for exoneration. Granted, some bondsmen will file frivolous motions just to keep from paying, but she judges all of us by those few. The chief DA has also given us some problems, but most of the judges tell him how the law reads and support us as bondsmen and BE.

Our laws allow us to search the residence of the defendant at any time because there is always reason to believe they are there. We can search other places if we have reasonable cause, or probable cause to think they are there. That's why I brought up the residence issue. If a person refuses us entry, no matter who or where it is, unless we KNOW the person is there, we contact LE for backup so that we do not run into this problem. It's better to CYA than hire an attorney.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/