| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| Utah Case Law https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2378 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | tsuggs [ Thu 02 Nov 2006 16:04 ] |
| Post subject: | Utah Case Law |
Lee v. Thorpe, 2006 WL 3069513 (Utah October 31, 2006) held that Utah public policy permits a recovery agent licensed in another state to recover a defendant in Utah even though the recovery agent was not licensed in Utah. The defendant failed to appear to answer charges in Colorado . The recovery agent was properly licensed in Colorado but not in Utah where he located and seized the defendant. The defendant sued the recovery agent, bail agent and surety for a variety of torts including ones based on violation of the Utah Bail Bond Recovery Act. The Court held that the bail contract gave the recovery agent the contractual right to seize the defendant wherever located, and that contract barred any tort claim unless the contract was against Utah public policy. The Court reviewed the background and public purposes of bail and recovery of fleeing defendants and held that public policy supported enforcement of the bail contract. The fact that the recovery agent was not licensed under the Utah Bail Bond Recovery Act was a matter between the enforcement authorities and the recovery agent, but it did not change the public policy favoring recovery of defendants and enforcement of the bail contract. The Court emphasized that the recovery agent had the qualifications and training to be licensed in Utah and that he was licensed under the comparable Colorado statute, which had very similar requirements. The Court affirmed the result reached by the Court of Appeals and reported as Lee v. Langley, 2005 WL 1831115 (Utah App. August 4, 2005). |
|
| Author: | HoundDog [ Thu 02 Nov 2006 17:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank God the good guys finally won one on this case! This almost affirms TvT. |
|
| Author: | ChuckJ [ Thu 02 Nov 2006 22:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
"The fact that the recovery agent was not licensed under the Utah Bail Bond Recovery Act was a matter between the enforcement authorities and the recovery agent" The decision was a positive step, however the above language leads me to believe that an out of state recovery agent could still be arrested for making an apprehension in Utah without being licensed in Utah. |
|
| Author: | thebishopp [ Fri 03 Nov 2006 00:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The key is that it is UTAH public policy which allows the out of state recovery agents. In addition what Chuck pointed out can't be overlooked. The fact is while this is good news for people who need to go into Utah in pursuit of a jumper, it doesn't really afirm in any way TvT. Nor does it really contradict current U.S. Court of Appeal rulings which say that States, essentially, can make their own laws restricting bondsmen (see below). I'm not sure if people are familiar that courts have already stated that T vs. T does NOT dictate a constitutional authority of bondsmen or their agents. To quote a KY Supreme Court Ruling: "Additionally, the Taylor dictum does not state a constitutional princpal or interept a federal statute so as to premet state law. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S.603, 605, 102 S.Ct. 1309, 1311, 71 L.Ed. 2d 490 (1982)(principles that evolved from federal decisional law and are not based on constitutional principals may be followed or disregarded by the states so long as the state procedure as a whole remains consistent with due process of law). As well as the U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit: "the quoted language from Taylor v. Taintor appears to be simply an effort to state the common law powers of bondsman, as found in Blackstone, Chapter 8, and several other sources. We find nothing in Taylor or in Chapter 8 of Blackstone, that would authorize the broad power of a bondsman at common law to "break the law"... Federal constitutional law does not preempt state law or immunize bondsmen from violations of local law." The fact is that until these rulings are challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court and a ruling afirming that the authority granted a bondsman (or his agent) in TvT does state a constitutional principal (ie; there would be no bondsmen, writing bonds, if a bondsman did not have the common law authorites to recover his fugitive thus effectively infringing upon the constitutional right to bond). Of course such an argument will have to be based upon an actual U.S. Constitutaionl right to bond. Note that in 2004 a case went before the Ohio Supreme Court regarding cash only bonds... a little different topic but an example of enforcing a "constitutional right". Cash-Only Bond Violates Ohio Constitution 2004-1104. Smith v. Leis, 2005-Ohio-5125. Hamilton App. No. C-040273. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Resnick, Lundberg Stratton and O'Donnell, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpd ... o-5125.pdf It is unconstitutional for a trial court to require a cash-only bond for a criminal defendant awaiting trial, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today. Of course I hope people realize that just because we may eventually sometime in the far future actually get a supreme court ruling in favor of TvT, that it does not prevent individual States from simply rebelling and making their own laws in contradiction of the rullings. Forcing people who do not have the money to pursue an appeal up the chain to comply. This is happening in another issue. Currently there are several states who are working or have passed anti-abortion laws in direct violation of roe vs wade. In fact several of these states have tried to do so on several occasions every so many years despite the fact that their laws keep getting struck down by federal courts. This has not stopped them. Now regardless of your stance on this issue (that is not the point of this post) the fact is that it illustrates the problem this industry faces as further supports statements that the bail industry is a dying one. The problem is that we do not have any big organization such as the ACLU or any other large organization to provide the financial clout needed to be constantly vigilant and proactive in both securing and then MAINTAINING any victories. |
|
| Author: | HGUNNER [ Fri 03 Nov 2006 01:28 ] |
| Post subject: | industry death |
Dons last few sentences were right on target--we do not have a large organization ie aclu, nra, etc to precipitate and fund change in our system of law--we are a group divided pulling ourselves apart and striking out at each other instead of fighting a common foe--it seems to me everyone has their little piece of the world to dominate--bondsmen ripping off beas --beas ripping bondsmen--wanabees and clown acts stirring up the pot many organizations out for themselves not the greater good and longevity of bea--unless we learn to organize we have no chance--I have been preaching and trying for years and we get some foward momentum and than wither and die---people i hear the bagpipes playing in the backround--amazing grace--our death song end of watch is near --we will become another page in american history |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Fri 03 Nov 2006 21:30 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Court upholds capture By ED WHITE Associated Press writer SALT LAKE CITY -- Here's a warning for fugitives hiding in Utah: Be careful whose hand you shake. Ruling in the case of a Colorado bounty hunter, the Utah Supreme Court said a bail bondsman can catch his prey in this state even if he's not licensed here. "Colorado and Utah share public-policy goals regarding bail recovery," the court said Wednesday, "and the licensing requirements for bail-recovery agents in Colorado are nearly identical to those in Utah." The court ruled in a case involving Gerald Lee, a fugitive from Colorado, who in 1998 was staying at his brother's home across the state line in Utah's Uintah County. Lee had signed an agreement that allowed a Grand Junction bail agency to chase him if he failed to show up in Colorado courts. Bounty hunter Miles Langley took the job. On a tip from the county sheriff, he drove to Naples, Utah, knocked on the door and said he was looking for a mechanic. When Lee appeared, they shook hands and Langley attempted to handcuff him. A brief fight occurred, but the bounty hunter won and hauled Lee to his car for a return ride to Colorado. Gerald and George Lee subsequently sued Langley, an insurance company and the owner of the bail-bond agency, claiming assault, reckless endangerment and false imprisonment. The jury, however, ruled against the brothers. The Lees also lost at the Utah Court of Appeals, although the court noted that Langley didn't have a Utah license to chase fugitives. In its 5-0 decision, the Supreme Court said it's undisputed that Langley was licensed in Colorado. It also said Gerald Lee put himself at risk by signing a contract that allowed his capture anywhere. The court said it doubts Utah wants to be known as a "safe haven for out-of-state fugitives by making it increasingly difficult" for bounty hunters to do their job. |
|
| Author: | AndyL [ Sat 04 Nov 2006 08:27 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thats great! I wish something like that would happen in the peoples republic of Illinois. |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Sat 04 Nov 2006 08:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Allegedly it has ---according to "SFox167" from DeKalb, Illinois. I e-mailed that individual and it came back undeliverable. hmmmm |
|
| Author: | AndyL [ Sat 04 Nov 2006 08:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Really? Would you mind directing me to where it says that? I have to deal with Illinois on a regular basis and hate it. Thanks |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Sat 04 Nov 2006 09:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The LAW does not state that it is now legal to do so - SFox167 has posted that - I checked with the DeKalb PD and was informed that the LAW had not changed. Wish that it had - we have folks that needed to be picked up in Illinois and tho we could get the LE to pickup the individual - because, the State that was wanting him would not extradite, it could not be done. Isn't Scott Olson up in Illinois? What does he have to say on the matter - perhaps things have changed and LE is just not up to speed yet? I will do some more checking from my end. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |