BAIL BONDSMAN SENTENCED TO 25 YEARS TO LIFE

Bob,

As far as the "no hunt" states. We have already ascertained that Kentucky is not really a "no hunt" state. Though they have set up a series of hoops that one must jump through. Those hoops could be argued to be against the Tailor Vs. Taintor ruling though and should be. The wording in the Supreme Court Ruling specifically likens it as to the "rearrest of a sherriff". In which case state laws regarding escaping fugitives or arrests should apply.

In fact their arguement as well as the others I believe, is that since they have institituted their own "bail" system that they are in compliance with the Eighth Amendment. It's kind of like stepping stones. The Eighth Amendment guarantees bail thus bringing about the need to have people like Sureties who can POST bail for those needing it as guaranteed by the afore mentioned Amendment. Now that we have people posting bail, those people have to have a way to guarantee the appearance of the accused so that they can face justice and that the people who are posting bail will continue to do so. This is where we get into the whole english common law thing which the colonies (us) have based most of our precedents on when no precedent currently exists. I hope I phrased that right.

Reading Illinois statute it is also contrary to the ruling.

The problem is that states regulary institute laws that are unconstitutional but until challenged nothing is done. Let's not forget right to vote laws that individual states had limiting black and female voters. Nor laws which created seperate school systems or the ability to drink from certain water fountains. These laws existed for a long time and it took even more time to get them declared unconstitutional... many, many, years.

Look at the medical marijuana ruling. After that ruling came out they were interviewing a California state prosecutor who flat out stated that they would disregard the supreme court ruling because their state citizens had voted and passed the medical marijuana law and they were there to serve their state citizens. In this case you have individuals saying they are not going to enforce the law. Just because the law says you have to do or don't do something doesn't mean you are going to listen untill you wind up behind bars.

Now as far as to no one has fought it.

It would cost quite a bit of money and there would have to be a case that one wants to take to the supreme court. Although on their faces we have heard of many cases which could have gone, we do not know the details of the situations and if they would make a good case to do so. I believe the fear is that if the case is not a good one then the supreme court may change their opinion thus eliminating our powers and rights to begin with. Remember what I said about that fellow being "pro-life" and the fear by "pro-choicers" that he will try to change the current ruling established by Roe Vs. Wade?

Another reason is possibly due to the fact that we are not exactly a highly organized and united group of people. Most of the cases you see are done by indivduals whereas in a lot of the cases that go to the supreme court they are backed by whole minority groups, ACLU, media attention, etc. Like I said before, what is needed is a coming together of all these so called organizations out there hocking their wares (training tapes and seminars) and charging a couple hundred dollars for membership where you don't really get anything. If they could do so then perhaps a case could be taken to the supreme court and successfully argued.

Though I will say again, just because the "supreme law of the land" says a state must act a certain way does not mean a state will do so without being forced to. States pass laws, as well as the federal government, all the time which either are or could be considered un-constitutional. Look through your individual state laws and I'm sure you can find some but no one has considered them important enough to challenge, or perhaps no one really knows what they are.

A thought.... you may consider arguing exonoration of the bond if a skip flees to one of those states! That may get the ball rolling. You see another way the supreme court steps in is a disagreement between two or more states. In the case of a very high dollar bond, say a million or so, and the skip flees to a state which has made it so difficult to pick him up (illinois for example) file for exonoration based upon that. Remember Tailor vs. Taintor orginally was based on the request of the surety to be exonorated from a bond.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

I was in a bit of a hurry earlier, so let me take a moment to expound on the phrase "no hunt" hereafter called, "NH," as it directly relates to spotting and moving a court on a technicality concerning a forfeited bond. In other words, I will approach NH figuratively versus literally.

Don wrote:

"....Just because the law says you have to do or don't do something doesn't mean you are going to listen untill you wind up behind bars..."

In California, I suspect that there are people who serve as models for Don's position with regard to arresting out-of-state skips in California. If a person fails to comply with California law concerning out-of-state skips, then the bail arrest is not a lawful one and in fact a misdemeanor to start with.

Conversely, Nevada is a NH state for me as I do not meet that state's licensing requirements. This isn't to say that it is physically impossible for me to grab someone, undetected, in Nevada and quickly shoot back across the border, but it would be unlawful. So we then turn to figurative impossibilities.

Is this situation contrary to some of the language in T&T?

If I were to challenge Nevada law useing T&T and subsequent cases that reinforce T&Tand lost, what kind of precedent would that set if it were to go the US Supreme Court and I lost again?

So, rather than try to gather up unwilling troops and risk a bad decision that effects the industry negatively, a quicker and much less expensive way is to move the court towards vacating a forfeiture and exonerating the bond using various precedents normally associated with contract law in conjunction with favorable decisions on bail law. However, filing a motion won't get the job done alone in many cases. One would have to be able to walk into court and skillfully argue his or her position while being opposed by a legal expert.

To argue a case effectively in open court, one must be able to stay on point, and, if one chooses to utilize non-bail or non-contract precedent in support of the argument, one must be able to link the language compellingly, so that such argument fits in with the facts of the case at hand.

As a final example of a curious NH incident, a police sergeant very sternly ordered my team and I out of his city under the threat of arrest after notifying his agency of our intentions to attempt a bail bond arrest. I had just arrested a skip one city away, so all I had to do to enter a NH area was to cross city limits.

Was he wrong? It didn't matter to me at the time. He declared his city NH, so it was NH.

In essence, he, a government employee, made my job "impossible."

Rex

As in Rex's case, I too have run into the situation, where in one city all we have to do is contact the Local LEA and they give us an incident report number, and not more than a quarter mile from that same administrative office, we can NOT recover a bond unless licensed in that CITY, not STATE.

I would pose the same question, would the courts deem it exonorable in this case? I have only heard of a small handfull of other agents that have pleaded this and never heard of one being exonorated due to this situation.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of Rex's post, or maybe I'm reading too much into it, and being in a state where there aren't any "stringent" laws on BEA's I may be slightly confused over what the ........

Oh the heck with it....... hand me one of your cups of coffee and maybe I'll understand better.

T&T (such an explosive abbreviation lol, how appropriate) actually doesn't say the states can't regulate HOW you become a Surety or his Agent. T&T merely states what your powers are AFTER becoming one as well as the issue of bond exonoration in that case.

In Indiana the quote from T&T is actually PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THE Department of Insurance ID.

In addition to State laws it states:

"Under authority of the United States Supreme Court, a Recovery Agent may enter another state for the purpose of arresting a principal. See Tailor vs. Taintor, 83 US 366 (1872). A Recovery Agent is not required to resort to new legal process to arrest the principal. See Fitzpatrick v. Williams, 46 F. 2d 40 (5th Cir. 1931)."

See that 5th Circuit court rulling?

Interestingly enough should I be "arrested" in another state I could refer to this very ID card issued by the STATE of INDIANA Dept. of Insurance and have a VERY compelling legal grounds for dismissal of charges.

Providing of course I wasn't doing anything crazy like shooting a fleeing suspect who is not even armed, in the ass or otherwise. Things even law enforcement officers are prohibited from doing.

There actually are states who support the Supreme Court and there are states who are trying to "blaze their own trail"

What happened to Rex is a very real threat from people who are attempting to throw their own weight around. Surely people have heard the comment, "I don't care what the law says, I say..."

I have personally heard fellow officers tell a suspect, "I don't give a shit what the law says you are going to jail". There was a term I learned in law enforcement called "The Magic Typewriter". I'm sure you can figure out what that was.

I recall a comment by a former shift commander regarding a person we knew was innocent when we charged and locked him up (I actually got him on Tape).

"don't worry about it, this guy can't afford an attorney anyway and will just take a plea..."

Now if the state law in the area alllowed for the recoveries I would have recorded Mr. Sgt. and then filed a complaint with the local PD and City Council later. No sense arguing with the guy, unless of course you want to begin the battle yourself right then and there as you better be prepared to spend some time in lockup.

Of course should you be successful in a wrongful or malicious prosecution suit you could wind up with a lot of money.

The fact remains is that there are cases which support T&T but they are not well known and, possibly due to our inability to organize, a lot of these cases are not made public. This issue isn't as big as abortion or race equality rights and do not garner the public attention such cases do. As such they are placed on the back burner and are not regarded as important.

The only argument we would have regarding compelling other states to allow out of state agents is to argue for some type of national license registry. Medical licensing is on a similiar system. If a person has a state issued license (Keep in mind T&T nor the Constitution prohibits a State of making requirements to BECOME a surety or his agent) he could go to the State police post of whatever state he is in hunting, notify them, and receive a "temporary pass" for a small fee or not, up to the state. Much like what Kentucky had proposed.

"(1) As used in this section, "bounty hunter" means any person whose services or actions performed are for the purpose of capturing a fugitive for a gratuity, additional pecuniary benefit, compensation previously paid by a non-governmental entity, or a reward. "Bounty hunter" includes a bail bondsman and his or her agent.

(2) Every bounty hunter shall, prior to taking any action in that person's capacity as a bounty hunter, notify the state police of the bounty hunter's presence in the Commonwealth and notify the sheriff of each county in which surveillance or apprehension is to take place of the bounty hunter's presence in that county. The bounty hunter shall make a separate notification for each fugitive being pursued by the bounty hunter and shall, where the bounty hunter remains in the Commonwealth, register the bounty hunter's presence each month that the bounty hunter remains in the Commonwealth. Notification to the state police shall be on a form provided by the state police and may be done at any state police post. Notification to the sheriff shall be on a form provided by the sheriff. Any form provided under this section shall request, and the bounty hunter shall provide, information on the bounty hunter and the fugitive the bounty hunter is pursuing, including the legal names of the bounty hunter and the fugitive, as well as the bounty hunter's address, local address, and motor vehicle registration. Both the state police and the sheriff may charge a five dollar ($5) fee for the acceptance of a form making a notification of a bounty hunter's presence.

(3) While a bounty hunter may make an arrest under KRS 440.270 and 440.280, nothing in this section or any other law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize a bounty hunter to commit any breach of the peace relative to other persons who are not subject to arrest by the bounty hunter or to break and enter any property in the Commonwealth, regardless of whether the bounty hunter in so doing may be acting under the color of law of another jurisdiction or in accordance with court process issued by another jurisdiction. No bounty hunter may command or attempt to command another person not subject to arrest by the bounty hunter to do any act or to refrain from any lawful conduct."

--------

Ironically this proposal coming from a DIFFICULT State (NOT a No hunt State). Interestingly enough this proposal would satisfy all US Constitutional Requirements as well as T&T while doing it in a way which would ensure more responsible activities by Sureties and their Agents thus reducing the amount of JUSTIFIABLE complaints. You are always going to have the unjustifiable ones.

As far as to the post about different laws in different cities within a state. That is merely the local authorities trying to flex their muscles and own ideas. Similiar to the situation where that Judge posted the ten commandments in the court house... regardless of our position on it, the LAW was against him. He didn't care and did his own thing... A LOT OF TIME AND MUCH MONEY LATER it was forcibly removed.

The same is true for this situation... in general we do not individually have the amount of money neccessary to accomplish this task. We do not have an ACLU who will swoop in and fork over the hundreds of thousands, in some case millions, it would take just to force them to obey the law.

Here is what I learned in my own experience as a police officer as well as being the son of a retired police sgt. and growing up around law enfocement my whole life (this includes sitting in court rooms from kindergarten age up to my teens while my father was in court testifying in criminal cases he worked in Hawaii):

It's not about guilty or innocent or even the law in most cases. What it is about the attorney you can afford, and the amount of money you have. Justice is for the rich. Very few poor get it. This is not a knock at our system... our SYSTEM is very good, it is the people IN POWER in that system which is the problem. Any one recall that City Prosecutor just a few years ago convicted of fixing his cases? I can tell you that is not exactly a one time thing.

As far as the cases we have been seeing lately they, on their face, seem to be of bail sureties and their agents doing incredibly stupid things and probably would not be good cases to take to the supreme court.

One more note, Hard, Difficult, Damn Near Impossible, doesn't mean Impossible, just DAMN NEAR.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

I can attest hearing "I don't care what the law says, I say..." a time or two

To address Mr. Personable's (I dig that screen name by the way) query, "impossible" doesn't really mean impossible in literal terms.

If actions by the goverment--there are many examples of "action"-- makes one party's performance in the bail contract impossible, then the other party to the contract has essentially violated the terms thus making the contract unenforceable.

In the case of being told to get out of town, the government failed to comply with the "convenent not to interfere" with a bondsman's right to arrest. This may be grounds for moving a court to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate the bond; hence, this is but one premise found in "Desktop Bounty Hunter."

All of this goes back to "language."

The Florida case may have utilized language that would eliminate using reasonable force to cure a forfeited bond.

No, one cannot lawfully shoot at a human being who does not have the immediate ability to cause great bodily injury or death to another human being, as it pertains to reasonable use of force with many other variables to consider before and after the fact; indeed, this is one of the hazardous exposures one will have to consider when entering and working in the trade.

Rex

I think Steve is right here. You guys need to take into consideration the force continuem. You can only use the amount of force necessary to apprehend the jumper or maybe you can go one step up the continueum if he decides to fight, but you cant just shoot the guy if he grabs under his seat or even if he tries to kick your ass.

BIG;
Tahnk you for your support.


[edited by Rex]

_________________
Steve Hedrick
Hedrick & Associates INVESTIGATIVE GROUP
Nederland, TX
TX PI LIC #A-09665
(409) 284-1895
http://360.yahoo.com/ftachaser357
"For every DEFENDANT that fails to appear in Court, there is a VICTIM seeking Justice"

Yea i was in Corrections for 15 years i know all about force and the law. I have been under invest more than once just for pushing a convict away from me , the Highway Patrol cant wait to come in and investigate a CO. So i can see where this guy was a prime target for LE and the Prosecutor.

Steve (see how I address someone Directly NOT Ambiguously?)

As it was obvious you were missing the point entirely I was going to ignore your posts, however I remembered what quote I was using at the bottom of my signature.

Here goes:

Nobody said you were wrong, stop being defensive.

Some of us were speaking about the wording. It had nothing to do with what he did.

I repeat we were not speaking about the fact that the guy got shot in his rear. We were speaking about what the wording of the rulling may mean to bail bondsmen and their agents.

You are obviously unfamiliar with and how important Case Law (how do you think we got Miranda Warnings?) is or how it can be applied to unrelated situations these days, obviously due to your apparent distate for lawyers or the possibility that you might appear to be one should you actually know how it works.

Anyone with a BASIC understanding would realize that the wording could be applied to ANY use of force case involving bailbondsmen.

"The jury.......did not accept the SURETY'S right to surrender a fugitive even if force is necessary."

Those of us who are familiar with the use of case law realize that this could be applied even to NON DEADLY FORCE SITUATIONS. Do you see anything in that line that states DEADLY FORCE SPECIFICALLY? That ruling could, and probably will, be applied to a Bail Surety attempting to even PICK UP his fugitive.

Let me spoon feed this too you: did not accept the surety's right to SURRENDER a fugtive EVEN IF force was NECESSARY.

( FYI - the words in capitols are the important ones)

To put that phrase in a much more simplier fashion for you:

'Pardner' it dont matter none if he pulls a gun on you, you ain't got no right to pull yours. In fact, you ain't even got no right to even be TRYING to get that thar fugtive. Y'all just goin have to eat that thar bond and pay up.


Now as far as my ability to speak on Use of Force.

Being a former Police Officer and tangling with quite a few REAL attorneys, I am very famliar with the Use of Force Continuum and what is 'supposed' to happen once "verbal judo" fails,

I've also had to TEACH the Continuum as both an ASP certified Instructor and a Hand to Hand instructor.

In addtion, I've had to file a few "use of force reports" myself. Although I have not had to actually "stop" anyone with "lethal or deadly" force, I have had to use the "threat" of "lethal or deadly" force (hopefully I will never have to, however each time I "drew down" on someone I was fully prepared to fire... fortunately for both of us they all surrendered, a couple of times I was just lucky)

(Just a note as well about the use of the word "stop" instead of "kill". During legal we were instructed not to use the word "kill" and to always say we shot to "stop" the suspect/perpatrator/etc. Even though we were taught to shoot center mass, and some agencies teach what is called "positive stop" (two to the chest one to the head) and it was obvious we were not shooting to "wound". It was explained that terminology and wording was VERY important, especially on the stand.)


You should know that the requirements for "threat" are very similiar to "use".

That being said... THE USE OF FORCE ISSUE IS NOT EVEN THE TOPIC OF CONTENTION HERE, WHY YOU PERSIST IN THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

To summarize:

NO ONE DISAGREES THAT THE USE OF FORCE IN THIS SITUATION (FROM WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD) WAS IN APPROPRIATE. GEEZ.

Now back to the point:

In a lot of cases, REGARDLESS of the fact of the case, the ruling may have much more far reaching consequences.

Those of us who keep up on such things are aware of this (when I was an active officer I subscribed to a law service (not cheap by the way) which sent police officers current superior court rullings on cases which may have an impact on what we did). I can't remember the name of the service but it is an old one... some of you guys out there may know who I am talking about, they also put out little handbooks that we could carry in our pockets with prevelant law and rullings regarding the basics, terry stops, searching, etc. Good service, if they send stuff to non-law enforcement I think I will start it up again as one should never stop learning.

Oh yes, by the way, if you ever served in Law Enforcement you had better know the law and how to argue it (any one academy trained has had to sit through those months of varoius versions of the Law - Interpretation and Application) as well as different updates from your local county or district attorneys regarding the current interpretation of various rulings.

Not to mention that cops are also couselors, day care workers, medics, politicians, and countless other occupations we never get credit for.

The cowboy and indian days are over 'pardner'.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

more case law to consider--Don -supreme judical court ruling-09274 state of massachusetts--commonwealth vs. ryan cabral and 36 companion cases---(the sjc in mass is the highest state court in mass)--if you check that ruling it gives the bondsmen and or his agent a absolute right of arrest and states"a surety and his agents may use only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to apprehend, detain, and deliver the principal to the court house, which shall in any event not exceed the force a police officer would be justified in using to exacute an arrest warrent in analogous circumstances.moreover, any use of force must be proceded by sufficient notice to the principal.--this is now the law of the land in mass(mass has always been a tough state on bea many bea arrested in the past for just doing there job and prosacuted and jailed or fined or both)in the ruling taylor v taintor is refered to along with other decisions.

as a retired nypd detective i have taken life six times all in toe to toe gun fights all were found to be justified---from what i have read in this case it is my opinion deadly force was not justified yet----i know he was reaching under his seat for what we do not know it could have been a gun, grenade
a knife or his wallet--i would have to study this case and have more info to be absolutly positive in my opinions--again from the little i read about this case the bondsmen should have waited a split second more to see what the skip had in his hand when it came out of under the seat---i know this is splitting hairs but i have seen good cops arrested and put in prison for less--the punishment does not fit the crime in this case at all this a case that should reach the us supreme court