Jurisdiction Lost?

Bail is very complex, and I am considered well-schooled in my area by my contemporaries, but I still have questions as a part of ongoing education.

In California, the first forfeiture period is 180 days plus five days for mailing the notice by the court clerk after a defendant has failed to appear. An extension for up to another 180 days may be granted by the court holding jurisdiction over the bond after the granting of a motion showing good cause (a declaration in support of the motion containing a sequential timline of events showing that the case has been worked diligently and an arrest may be soon).

As is typical, I get "emergency" cases that are between 30 and 5 days withing summary judgment on either the first 180 or the second 180 day period. Sometimes I can work with these situations, but normally I pass on them due to the short time to work last minute "emergencies."

Bail agents are generally known to file for an extension on the 184th day after forfeiture, and the court hearing is set out two weeks to three months depending on the county. Bail agents see this as extra time.

I have queried various professionals about the time period between the contested summary judgment date and the court hearing. Some say "sure, the bond is still workable while the matter is pending," but no one can direct me to a specific reference to verify this.

Is there any specific law or case that enables a BEA to continue the investigation once the summary judgment date passes but a hearing to decide on a motion is pending?

Let's take it a step further.

Is there any law or case that enables a BEA to continue the investigation once the final year has passed but a motion attacking the summary judgment is pending?

Remember, in this instance we are enforcing a perishable civil contract between the court and the surety. Once that contract has expired then any arrest is essentially a private citizen warrant arrest if we're lucky and the local DA sees it that way; accordingly, I will cease and desist an investigation that has passed the summary judgment date irrespective of any pending motions; however, if an extension is granted then the case can be resumed, but once the summary judgement has been entered then the game is over for me.

I'd appreciate hearing opinions from BEAs in other states and also from California. Specifically, can anyone direct me to a code, statute or case that addresses this topic.

Rex

Rex;

I can not talk about CA, but here in Texas, the Bondsman can recover some money after Finial Judgement of a bond, once the Defendant is re-arrested. The time limit here in Texas is 2 years.

For example, I had a Skip that I chased for 3 years. I looked for her for 1 year after initial FTA and 2 years after the Final Judgement of the Bond. This was a $200,000.00 dollar Bond. Just within the 2 year time limit, I found her and had her re-arrested. My Client recieved back 95% of her money back!

I tell my Clients here in Texas to never stop looking for their Skips! Because for every DEFENDANT that fails to appear in Court, there is a VICTIM seeking JUSTICE!

_________________
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"

Mr. Hedrick,

After reading your post-reply, I seemed to recall something about the two-year thing.

Well, as it turns out, I do have a California case that may involve a wayward client returning to Texas.. Hold on, let me check the file...Let's see, Austin, Paige and Buda Texas may be long-shot probabilities.

The Indemnitor submitted the penal amount of the bond to stop investigative efforts, so I'd have to contact the bail agent to see what the status is. The case is good until approximately May 10, 2004.

Interested?

Rex

Rex,

Read California Penal Codes 1305 thru oh, 1306 and you will find your answers.

Good Luck

Tony,

Thank you for your response; however, California Penal Code (CPC) Sections 1305-1306 do not address my question as these codes mention nothing of enforcing a civil contract during pending motions but rather reasons for motions and what happens after the hearings.

Of course, if I've missed something, you should feel free to direct me to a specific code, and I will be grateful.

A study of bail related codes has yielded negative results. The California Code of Civil Procedure and maybe local court rules may contain something, but I haven't happened along anything conclusive.

The simple point is that known language speaks of what is permissable up to the summary judgment date, but not when that date has passed and the state of the bond is stayed until further hearings.

Bail is a funky cross between civil and criminal law, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but in civil law an issue that has become the focus of a pending hearing via motion is in limbo until the matter has been decided by the court; therefore, the question remains.

Perhaps someone knows of a Federal case or has addressed this issue in court?

I initially asked the question because of a rising number of calls from desparate bail agents--who waited until the last possible second--requesting my arrest services after the summary judgment date and when motions to exonerate were on the calendar.

The authority to make a bail arrest comes from CPC 1300, 1301, and 1299.02(2), but these codes do not address post-summary judgement/motion pending questions.

Any help on this would be great!

Rex

Well it seems that you have done some homework. Your right, California PC 1305 (I) just gives the parameters of filing a timely motion. It would be obvious that by being the real party and interest on a surety bond, that we have jurisdiction on that bond if the forfeiture period has not lapsed and all extension motions are timely. Understanding the way laws are written, this is clear under the same sections that give us the authority. Where this gets gray is when a motion is not timely and your waiting for a court to grant the motion while hopefully not denying it based on being untimely.

As far as the issue of summary judgment, I wish I can give you a code that specifically and in detail, addresses your question, but I can't. May I suggest that the court it’s self losses jurisdiction on a surety bond at a given time. Wouldn't it make sense that we also would at the same time? Example: In California, if a motion to extend under 1305.4 is not timely, then technically the court losses jurisdiction to even address the matter, causing the forfeiture to go to summary judgment. Although I have slipped them by and others surely have as well, the motions are invalid and the court doesn’t even have the authority to rule. (According to the law). Now, if the motion is timely our jurisdiction is extended till the motion is heard. There is no gap in jurisdiction while the motion is waiting to be heard. At the end of all allotted time, 180-days plus 180-days in CA, all jurisdictions are lost for the agent and the court. Whether summary judgment is entered or not, that's it, "The End". However, once again, in California I know of individuals that have continued to seek and surrender a defendant after the 2nd extension and prior to receiving S.J. Since the court legally has 90 days to enter S.J. after the final deadline, they didn’t want to wait around for it without taking a chance at getting it exonerated. They have been successful and the courts exonerated their bail instead. This is another gray area of course and is not suggested. After all, what arrest authority do we have after our allotted time? I guess many know that it won't be question the majority of time. I'd hate to be the one that did it when a civil right expert questioned it.

I would be glad to continue this discussion. I have tried my best to answer your questions. Let me know if this is satisfactory.

Mr. Berg,

It appears that we are on the same, proverbial page of music on the discussion of California Bail Law.

Forgive me for not addressing your point, but that the original motion in question was timely filed was left as a foregone conclusion. This was my oversight in describing the conditions leading to my question.

I am well versed and practiced when it comes to a court's timelines, and, I'm not ashamed to say, I've brought these ideas to various courts via moving papers.

Beyond the second 180-day extension, if the court grants further extensions, we are prohibited from seeking an exoneration based on jurisdictional restrictions per the "Bites the hand that feeds you" doctrine; moreover, a relatively new case takes issue with this matter in that if both parties agree to a series of continuances post-SJ then we are not permitted to attack the forfeiture pursuant to CPC 1306(c).

(Lately, I've been encountering fierce opposition in various jurisdictions resulting in a volley of reply memoranda and some pretty exciting oral arguments).

With regard to CPC 1305(i), I spend a substantial amount of time, as an agent for various sureties, attacking forfeitures in open court while at the same time looking to close a case via arrest. This aspect of my diversification is detailed in "Desktop Bounty Hunter" available through www.uenforcebail.com.

Again we arrive at the same question, and I think your observation regarding a savy civil attorney raising an eyebrow concerning a post-SJ arrest is tale-telling; indeed, I'm not going to allow myself to be a test case. Of course, if the underlying charge is a felony, then we might be able to make the "Citizen Arrest" argument if push came to shove, but why be placed in that situation.

For now, I believe that continued efforts to arrest a bail skip pending a motion for an extension is relatively permissable so long as the court doesn't get creative and retroactively order the SJ; however, I also believe that efforts to arrest post SJ is problematic at best and subject to future construction by some criminal court.

Rex

Rex,

May I direct you to the Law Offices of Mark Berstein and John Rorabaugh. I am positive if you have not consulted them yet, that you would find their findings and opinions valuable. They will be glad to speak to you in person. Their # is 559-227-2373, good luck!