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

TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14734		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Charlie Deckert [ Wed 27 Mar 2013 06:32 ]
Post subject:  TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
As many of you know I am very active with the Texas Legislative process. I attend every session and all committee hearings on Bills of interest to our industry (Fugitive Recovery) that I can. Two years ago we submitted language that would make it a crime for operators in Texas to conduct any activity that they were not insured to conduct. The best example I can give you is;

I have a PI company and I pay for general liability as required by statute. I also decide I want to do some fugitive apprehensions. My insurance policy specifically excludes this kind of activity but who cares right I have general liability. So I don't buy insurance for that activity even though the occupations code in Texas states you must be insured for all activities conducted. There is nothing more than an administrative slap on the wrist for not following this rule. What we asked for and now looks like we will get is a real offense that has some teeth.

House Bill 3433 Insurance Coverage

Something we have been complaining about and reporting for years finally making some headway. We first requested this language two years ago.

The Problem - PI and Guard Companies providing services such as Fugitive Apprehension without notifying their insurance company. Almost ALL insurance carries exclude this activity and though there is a rule that you have to carry the proper insurance there has never been a penalty for it. Now it looks like there will be.

So if you are a PI or guard company and you are not paying for coverage like we have to.....get legal or get out.

It reads partially -

Sec. 1702.3841. INSUFFICIENT INSURANCE COVERAGE; OFFENSE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person is subject to Section
1702.124 and knowingly fails to provide and maintain a certificate of insurance or other documentary evidence of insurance sufficient to cover all of the business activities of the person related to private security. One is presumed to have knowingly violated this provision if reasonable notice and opportunity to cure the defect has been provided prior to the violation.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Thanks to our State Reps and Senators for helping us clean up our industry and get the riff raff off the streets.

If you think one person can not make a difference, think again, stick with it. We have at least 4 Bills that might get some traction this session and we don't have a Lobbyist or a Committee. Its just us door knocking and building relationships and our reputation. We spend almost as much time educating law makers and enforcement as we do Bounty Hunting and we have over 180 cases opened since October 2012 and closed over 100 of those. We are busy to say the least. So get out there, get involved, invest in your industry and do your part to make it better.
Author:  tsuggs [ Wed 27 Mar 2013 08:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Good work. I know some agents don't like the idea of having to obtain fugitive recovery insurance.

However, if more states require it, there will be more companies offering it and hopefully the premium costs will then go down for everyone.
Author:  Charlie Deckert [ Thu 28 Mar 2013 05:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
tsuggs wrote:
Good work. I know some agents don't like the idea of having to obtain fugitive recovery insurance.

However, if more states require it, there will be more companies offering it and hopefully the premium costs will then go down for everyone.



Tony,

Yea not sure I like it, but it is required so at least now for the ones who opt to operate outside the Occupations code there will be ramifications. You know the old saying, if I have to pay for it then so should everyone else. It levels the playing field for legitimate operators is all. If I had my way we would be exempt from being required to carry insurance but I understand the concept.

Best advice I got from our attorney is to carry the absolute minimum coverage. We shot and killed a guy a few years back, it was a good shoot, no-billed by Grand Jury but we had 2M in coverage. My attorney said it was the only reason anyone thought of a filing a law suite. Ultimately one was never filed but the advice makes sense now. We only carry the state required minimum coverage. The casket/ambulance chasers wont touch a suite for less than half a million.

VICTORY # 2

On another note late yesterday we got a call from our State Rep who told us another bill that would have allowed Jailers to be exempt from being licensed by the State was killed on the floor. HB461 would have let 27K jailers in the state operate at will with no license, insurance, oversight or accountability and do so wearing the uniform of the county they work in. We have been fighting this bill for the last 6 sessions and every year we show up to testify against it. This year the association that has been pushing it didn't even show up to testify for it. Myself and 3 other people from our industry showed up and said our peace. So again, if you think you cant make a difference you are wrong. We are doing it in a big way this legislative year.
Author:  tsuggs [ Thu 28 Mar 2013 10:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Regarding the liability insurance, that is one future goal of NABBI is to be able to offer it as a group or at a discount for our membership.

I have spoken with 1 carrier and to offer just recovery insurance not tied to PI work, we will have to have over 100 members before most insurance companies will talk with us about it.

About the jailer leg, would there be a conflict with "under the color of law" if the jailers did recovery work for private bail bondsmen?
Author:  Joe Stiles [ Thu 28 Mar 2013 19:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Can a person be removed from Texas on a misdemeanor without extradition? Not every state includes bail arrests under UCEA. There was a recent AG opinion here in TN that concluded that bail arrests could possibly be subject to UCEA, but that opinion has never been tried here, and currently we can arrest and transport out of state without it. I've never been clear about Texas as I've heard various opinions. It would seem to me that the answer would be "no" due to the need to take them to the county where they are arrested. If they're taken there and the originating state refuses to extradite, what is done with them?
Author:  Charlie Deckert [ Fri 29 Mar 2013 08:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Joe Stiles wrote:
Can a person be removed from Texas on a misdemeanor without extradition? Not every state includes bail arrests under UCEA. There was a recent AG opinion here in TN that concluded that bail arrests could possibly be subject to UCEA, but that opinion has never been tried here, and currently we can arrest and transport out of state without it. I've never been clear about Texas as I've heard various opinions. It would seem to me that the answer would be "no" due to the need to take them to the county where they are arrested. If they're taken there and the originating state refuses to extradite, what is done with them?


Joe,

Not my opinion here just reading straight from the Occupations Code as it is today. You CAN NOT remove a person from Texas. You CAN NOT in fact remove them from the County you apprehend them in. If they have a misdemeanor warrant in another State, you are pretty much out of luck. Sometimes even Felony warrants are non extraditable and the local LEO cant arrest them.

Sec. 1702.3867. Execution Of Capias Or Arrest Warrant; Offense.

(a) A private investigator executing a capias or an arrest warrant on behalf of a bail bond surety may not:

1.enter a residence without the consent of the occupants;
2.execute the capias or warrant without written authorization from the surety;
3.wear, carry, or display any uniform, badge, shield, or other insignia or emblem that implies that the private investigator is an employee, officer, or agent of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state; or
4.notwithstanding Section 9.51, Penal Code, use deadly force.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) (3), a private investigator may display identification that indicates that the person is acting on behalf of a bail bond surety.

(c) A private investigator executing a capias or an arrest warrant on behalf of a bail bond surety shall immediately take the person arrested to:

1.if the arrest is made in the county in which the capias or warrant was issued:
A.the county jail for that county if:
i.the offense is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or a felony; or
ii.the offense is a Class C misdemeanor and the capias or warrant was issued by a magistrate of that county; or
B.the municipal jail for the appropriate municipality if the offense is a Class C misdemeanor and the capias or warrant was issued by a magistrate of the municipality; or
2.if the arrest is made in a county other than the county in which the capias or warrant was issued, the county jail for the county in which the arrest is made.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person violates this section. An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

SATE JAIL FELONY IF YOU GET CAUGHT. The word is that now that defendants are reporting BEA's that take them out of the county they are captured in and the BEA's are getting hemmed up for it. One guy got arrested at the Jail with the defendant for capturing him in a neighboring county. They are not playing around. As LEO's become more informed they are taking action on those operating in Texas.
Author:  Charlie Deckert [ Fri 29 Mar 2013 08:36 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
tsuggs wrote:
Regarding the liability insurance, that is one future goal of NABBI is to be able to offer it as a group or at a discount for our membership.

I have spoken with 1 carrier and to offer just recovery insurance not tied to PI work, we will have to have over 100 members before most insurance companies will talk with us about it.

About the jailer leg, would there be a conflict with "under the color of law" if the jailers did recovery work for private bail bondsmen?



Tony,
That was one of my points of contention. Where does line that start and stop? As private citizens we are not, under the 4th amendment "Actors of the State" but they are. Who is liable if they act at such in the course of their side job? The County will say, he was working Privately, the Plaintiffs Attorney will say, he was wearing a county uniform. All big problems.

Talk to Prime Insurance they are reasonable and do exactly what you said, ONLY offer the coverage for the activity of Fugitive Apprehensions. You can get a GL for the PI stuff at normal rates.
Author:  Joe Stiles [ Fri 29 Mar 2013 09:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Thank you. It seems pretty airtight except that it does not directly address out of state bail agents. It talks only about "counties". Are you aware of any case law regarding out of state recovery agents? I'm not arguing; I'd really like to know. At this point, it appears that Texas is a no hunt state for us.
Author:  tsuggs [ Fri 29 Mar 2013 09:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Charlie,

I will contact Prime to see if they can offer NABBI members a decent rate for bail fugitive recovery. Most of us are not PIs.
Author:  OrangeCountyBounty [ Fri 29 Mar 2013 12:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: TEXAS LEGISLATION UPDATE
Sounds like Texas is in good hands.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/