Bail & Bounty-Hunters - for real?

In addition to my SDMB addiction (see http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000573.html , I am also a non-recovering L&O addict on A&E (although what will happen in the fall with the time change moving it late in the night I shudder to think).

Watching it, I've got a few questions about U.S. criminal procedure.

A. Bail - the only thing they seem to discuss on bail is money, and great gobs of it. Under U.S. law, can't the court consider things like flight risk or risk to the community directly, or is the money always a surrogate for these types of concerns?

B. Bail seems to be posted by bond companies, who have no personal involvement in the case. How does this work? How do they make money off it? Does the accused pay a premium to the company, like regular insurance, which the accused never gets back?

C. Bounty-Hunters - is this for real?!? Both L&O and Homicide have had cases about bounty-hunters. Didn't that go out with the closing of the frontier? If they do exist, and are exercising authority granted under state laws, how come they don't have to comply with constitutional protections, like search and seizure law? If their authority comes from the state, don't they become state agents?

So, what's the Dope, you SDMB lawyers? Is L&O just stretching the law for "dramatic effect," or is it relatively accurate? and if the latter, how does it all work?

Any comments would be appreciated.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll give it a try:

A - Bail can be denied if the judge feels that there is a risk of flight or danger to the community. Bail is simply a way for a defendant to back up his promise to appear with hard cash. Since the case hasn't reached a penalty phase, the defendent is still considered innocent, so jail can only be used as a way of preventing flight or additional crimes, not punnishment.

B - Bail Bondsmen are loan companies. You put up some collatiral and the premium(interest) and he takes the risk that you will appear for trial and the principle(bail) will be returned.

C - If you run, your body is what's standing between the bondsman and the principle of the loan. The government (both fed. and state) have passed laws (many dating back to the 19th cen.) to oblige him in this endevour. Bounty hunters have many of the same powers of law enforcement without many of the constraining, constitutional responsibilitys. Basically when you signed the paperwork you agreed that the bondsman can deny you any of the constitutional rights that a cop would have to afford you.

jti aksed: Bail seems to be posted by bond companies, who have no personal involvement in the case. How does this work? How do they make money off it? Does the accused pay a premium to the company, like regular insurance, which the accused never gets back?

Bail companies make their profit by charging the accused a percentage of their bail.

You or your representative (lawyer, friend, dad) call them and tell them where you are being held. They come down and post your bail, and you are released into their custody. They then take you to where you can get some cash, and you pay them the percentage agreed upon. Then then let you go on your own recognazance.

When you go to court at your appointed time, the bail money is returned to the bail bond company.

So if you skip town, they don't get their money back. The authorities will then issue a warrent for your arrest. If the bail amount was high, the bond company will send out their own agents (bounty hunters) too to find you and bring you in. Otherwise, they're out the money they posted.

Keeves... my understanding is that what they're really saying is that the bail was set at $25,000, the accused couldn't or didn't pay it, so he's still in jail. However, if tomorrow he comes up with the money, he's out.

Here's an article about some of the excesses that can arise due to the actions of bounty hunters:
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magaz...ers_at_da.html

I sure wouldn't want to be hunted down by one of those guys! In the United States, bounty hunters do not operate under the same code as law enforcement officers.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

I still don't get why the constitutional protections don't apply to bounty hunters. If they are exercising powers delegated by the state (have I got that right, to start with?), how can those rights be waived? After all, if, as a condition of getting a driver's licence, the state asked you to waive your rights against arbitrary search and seizure or detention, it wouldn't be effective, would it? can you contract out of such basic rights in advance?

They're not working for the state, they're working for the bail bond company. Even though they've got the same goal (tracking down a bail jumper) they have two different employers.

okay, but if they're just a private company, not an agent of the state, what gives them the right to detain someone and haul them back across the state line? That's assault and kidnapping. gets back to my puzzlement - can you waive your rights prospectively by contract, to allow someone to take you against your will? or I am just missing something?

After all, if, as a condition of getting a driver's licence, the state
asked you to waive your rights against arbitrary search and seizure or
detention, it wouldn't be effective, would it?
can you contract out of such basic rights in advance?
2nd part 1st: yes,When you go into the military,for example, you give up some 'basic rights'. Other rights are given up when you are employed by any one.And having your luggage searched when you enter the boarding areas of airports. That is part of a 'contract' you enter into when entering. The airport contracts to let you in , you contract to being seached. If your profession requires a license the state can come in and check your premises for violations without a warrant. Restaurants and health inspecters, Pharmacists and narcs.
1st part 2nd: You give up some rights here too.The state contracts to let you drive on the public byways. You contract to pay for this privlege. In addition you agree that if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test (which some have argued is 'testifying against yourself) the state will suspend your license for a specified period whether you are convicted of DUI or not.

From William H. Carlile, Special to The Christian Science Monitor (typically not my first choice for cites):

Bounty hunters have operated under virtually the same rules for more than a century. An 1873 United States Supreme Court ruling gives bounty hunters broad rights when pursuing criminals who skipped bail.

As contract workers for bail-bond firms, they are not required to obtain a search warrant, as are police, nor are they required to notify police in advance of their action. Also, police must get a subject to waive extradition if he flees the state, while a bounty hunter, "throws you in the trunk and brings you back," says Aaron Rosenthal, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

They have a "contractual right of arrest," says Bob Burton, who runs a Tucson, Ariz., academy that trains bounty hunters. When a defendant has bail posted, he signs an agreement stating he may have his house entered or be taken across state lines if he fails to honor the agreement.


Seems pretty shaky to me too.

The state contracts to let you drive on the public byways. You contract to pay for this privlege. In addition you agree that if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test (which some have argued is 'testifying against yourself) the state will suspend your license for a specified period whether you are convicted of DUI or not.

so why don't the states all include, as a condition of your licence, that the police can arbitrarily stop you? Isn't there a limit to this idea somewhere?

They have a "contractual right of arrest," says Bob Burton, who runs a Tucson, Ariz., academy that trains bounty hunters. When a defendant has bail posted, he signs an agreement stating he may have his house entered or be taken across state lines if he fails to honor the agreement.

A contractual right of arrest?!? Only in America...

Under the law I'm familiar with, you can't contract away your liberty. For example, if Robin Williams contracts to give a performance, and then declines, the courts will not force him to perform. The other party to the contract can sue for big bucks, but can't force him to do his schtick - that's "involuntary servitude."

So, even if I sign this contract authorising arrest, and then skip, how can they grab me against my current will and transport me to someplace I don't want to go?

Also, I can't sign away someone else's rights, can I? So if I skip from North Dakota to South Dakota and stay with a friend, the bounty hunters can't break into the friend's house to arrest me under the contract, can they?

I have to admit I'm not really up to date on bounty hunting laws but one thing to remember: the bounty hunters won't come after you (and can't) until you miss your scheduled hearing.

If you don't show up at the hearing then the court will issue a warrant for your arrest. It's the arrest warrant that really allows the bounty hunters to grab you, using a citizens arrest. So it really doesn't matter whether you want to go or not.

Also, a couple of bounty hunters I knew in the past told me that they usually told the local police that they where in town and would show the local PD the warrant they had for the arrest of the skipper. Said it made things alittle easier.

I would point out that typically bounty hunters only go after felons (who usually have the larger amounts of money riding on them--I think a bounty hunter usually gets 10%), especially across state lines or it may cost too much in expenses to make it worth while.

Not sure if that helped clarify anything...

------------------
"Nuts!"
Gen A.C. McAuliffe
"The general's nuts."
unknown 101st AB grunt

Okay, Mojo says they're private operators, therefore the Constitution doesn't restrict them. Xgemina says they are enforcing a warrant, which to my mind would make them the agent of the state and therefore subject to the Constituion.

I still don't get it. (I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely baffled.)

At any rate, thanks for the TIME site and the Christian Science article quotations. They've helped a bit.

When I watched the original L&O and Homicide shows, I was shaking my head because I thought they must have got it wrong. I'm still shaking my head, but for a different reason - what is this weird stuff?

A. Yeh the courts consider all that if you got property, how long you been at one residence, if you got a job, your reputation, the crime your charged with, etc.
B.Yes they make money , you pay them a pecentage up front. They put up the rest. Thats why they hire the bounty hunters if you skip.If you don't show up in court when your s'posed to the bail is forfeit. A performance bond is more like insuarance you pay premiums.
C. THIS is the biggy.They are for real. You can be one if you want . Anybody can bring in a skip. There is a lot of debate going on right now about just what is the legal status of a bounty hunter.Especially in Arizona I think, the other states are waiting to see the outcome of that.What Arzona is going to do and how it stands up in court.
The courts generally have considered bounty hunters to be private citizens and let them get away with some real nasty stuff. It is up to the person they bring in to sue in civil court. The actions of the bounty hunter aren't part of the original case. You already been arrested and charged, skipping is a seperate deal.
Some states do have licensing but it is usually only for employees of a bail bondsman.There are instances of bounty hunters going into other states,even other countries, and basically kidnaping people.

------------------
Signitorily yours, Mr John
" Pardon me while I have a strange interlude."-Marx (Melissa Gilbert is in the rest room right now or she would have a snappy comeback)

Papabear,

Thanks for the info. Your answer to the first point leads me to ask another question: can bail be denied solely for flight risk/danger to the community, even if the accused has the cash?

To take an obviously implausible hypothesis, what happens if Bill Gates is charged with the murder of Steve Jobs?

If the DA says, "we're asking for a cool $10 million in bail," Bill can snap his fingers for a flunkey to bring it in in a wheelbarrow.

Can the DA say instead that Bill is a flight risk, considering his many private jets, yachts, and cash, and ask that bail be denied regardless?

Or, what if Bill was caught with a hate-list of people, like the presidents of Netscape, SUN, and the federal counsel handling the anti-trust case, and Steve Jobs was only No. 1 on the list? Can the DA say there's grounds to believe that releasing Bill would put the others at risk , and bail should be denied?

So can the court deny bail on the basis of flight risk or community risk, in spite of the $10 million in the wheelbarrow?

I'm just guessing now, jti, but I think the judge tailors the bail to fit the circumstances of the accussed. A valid bail ammount in the case of Bill Gates would have to be in the 2-figure billions to make it practical.

In the case of murder or any other high penalty crime I don't think bail would be granted to anybody with the means to leave the country (case in point - OJ Simpson)

A. The monetary amount is typically based on the risk to escape as well the danger to the community. If either (or both) is considered too great, no bail. Typically there are other restrictions as well (i.e. no leaving the state)

B. Vigorish.

C. Arizona has virtually no restrictions on bounty hunters. They're currently reevaluating that position after a botched armed robbery where the killers claimed that they were bounty hunters and their "bail jumper" (victim) opened fire first.

As to the Bill Gates hypothetical situation, the judge alone determines the appropriate bail amount. For ANY defendant if the judge believes that person is a flight risk or community risk, no matter what the $$$ amount, bail can be denied.

I have a different question: Sometimes I hear on the news, "John Doe was held in lieu of $25000 bail." Isn't that backwards? Holding the suspect is what the officials really want to do! Accepting bail is in lieu of holding the suspect!

What gives? Is this just another example of press inaccuracy?

i don't really know what I am talking about. Where's a lawyer when you need one?

>so why don't the states all include, as a condition of your licence,
that the police can arbitrarily stop you?<
It is an 'on again off again' policy here in Texas that the police can set up road blocks for 'license, insurance, and sobriety checks'. sometimes the courts say yes sometimes no. State troopers can pull over commercial rigs any time they want for 'safety and weight checks'.
>For example, if Robin Williams contracts... ...that's "involuntary servitude." AH but Mr Williams agreed to perform and signed a contract. If he's been paid he either gives the moneyback plus pays any 'damages', which can include anticipated profits or he performs. Aint nothin involuntary about it unless he was forced into the agreement somehow.
> the bounty hunters can't break into the friend's house to arrest me
under the contract, can they? If the COPS have a warrant for your arrest they don't need any other warrant to go into anywhere to get you. And we already know the bountyhunters aren't under the same restrictions.
Xgemina sez "It's the arrest warrant that really allows the bounty hunters to grab
you, using a citizens arrest." Uh sorta, if 'Texas wants you anyway' and your in Oklahoma, the OK cops might arrest you and take you to one of their jails where a Texas Ranger will try to convince you to waive extradition failing that you'll languish in jail while the OK courts decide if you should go back to Texas. But the Ranger can't go there, grab you, and take you back to Texas. Which the bounty hunters do. BTW if you , as just you, not a bounty hunter, are attempting a 'citizens arrest' you better not 'grab' any one, your opening yourself up for all sorts of legal problems. kidnaping, unlawful detention, etc.
Clear as the Rio Grande after a rain isn't it? Thats why all the legal stuff is happening now. JTI mentioned the school in Arizona. Arizona seems to be the hotspot right now, lots of 'violations' by bounty hunters there have resulted in the state legislature taking a look at bounty hunting in general.Rest of the states waiting to see which way the frog jumps. whew, thats the most I typed in years.

Okay, Mojo says they're private operators, therefore the Constitution doesn't restrict them. Xgemina says they
are enforcing a warrant, which to my mind would make them the agent of the state and therefore subject to the Constituion.

Don't think of it as enforcing a warrant, think of it as a citizen's arrest. With a citizen's arrest, you do not have to read Miranda rights and follow certain procedures that the police have to in order for the arrest to be legit in court. If you accidentally grab the wrong person, you'll be in deep trouble for kidnapping a (presumably) law-abiding citizen. However, if you catch the right person, you're saving the cops a lot of time and hassle trcking the guy down.

"Okay, Mojo says they're private operators, therefore the Constitution doesn't restrict them. Xgemina says they are enforcing a warrant, which to my mind would make them the agent of the state and therefore subject to the Constituion."

"I still don't get it. (I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely baffled.)"

For very good reason.

Many people think that bounty hunters should be considered to be acting under color of law and thus be subject to the 14th Amendment due process requirements. The trend of case law in the 20th Century has been towards considering private parties acting under the authority of state law to be state actors. "Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law." U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941).

The problem arises because the last case on point (that is, dealing directly with the status of bounty hunters and their actions) is that U.S. Supreme Court case from 1873. This case is binding on the state and federal courts, and there is only one way to change this:

1) A court decides, contrary to that precedent, that bounty hunters are acting under color of law and holds them liable as such for their actions.

2) The bounty hunters (if they are being sued or charged) or the government prosecutor (if the criminal case against the bail jumper is dismissed on the basis of the bounty hunters' misbehavior) appeals this decision.

3) The case proceeds through the appellate process to the U.S. Supreme Court.

4) The Supreme Court decides that this case, out of the hundreds of petitions it receives every year, is important enough to accept.

5) The Supreme Court hears the case and finds the bounty hunters to be state actors.

In the fictional scenario on "Law & Order," the problem was that the judge was reluctant to go against precedent, and found the bounty hunters actions to be legal even though the judge clearly would have liked to find the other way if it weren't for the Supreme Court case from 1873.

Another problem is that, if a court DID ignore the precedent and find the bounty hunters to be subject to the 14th Amendment, the bounty hunters may decide to "bite the bullet" and let this individual case go rather than appeal and risk setting a sweeping precedent against them. Of course, their willingness to "grin and bear it" depends on whether they are facing a civil judgment that their insurance will pay, a judgment including millions in punitives that insurance won't cover, or a criminal conviction with a prison sentence. (^:

For example, if Robin Williams contracts... ...that's "involuntary servitude." AH but Mr Williams agreed to perform and signed a contract. If he's been paid he either gives the moneyback plus pays any 'damages', which can include anticipated profits or he performs. Aint nothin involuntary about it unless he was forced into the agreement somehow.

that's my point - if he chooses not to perform, he pays damages. The other party to the contract can't send goons to Mr. Williams' hotel room, have them stuff him in the trunk of a car, and bring him to the venue. You can't, by contract, forfeit your liberty in this way - at least, not under the laws I operate under.

Mojo and John: have I got this right?

a. the state must respect the constitutional rights of individuals, including the right to counsel (for which Miranda is a handy shorthand).

b. when the state delegates to police officers the power to arrest an individual by warrant, those officers must similarly respect the individual's constitutional rights.

c. but when the state delegates to private individuals the power to arrest another person by warrant, those private individuals are not required to respect the arrested person's constitutional rights?

can part of the problem here be that the USSC decision in question predates cases of selective incorporation under the 14th Amendment (like Mapp v. Ohio), which held that the states must respect the Bill of Rights? This suggestion just now occurred to me, reviewing the posts.

at any rate, thank you all for your attempts to get it through my thick skull. I'm still baffled, and saying thank God for Sir John A Macdonald.

[[Thanks for the info. Your answer to the first point leads me to ask another question: can bail be denied solely for flight risk/danger to the community, even if the accused has the cash?]]

Danger to the community is a dicey reason (although it has been approved by the US Supreme Court), but I'm pretty sure the answer is also yes regarding an unreasonable risk of flight. As PapBear suggests, bail may be totally denied for murder (in general, capital crimes, even when there is no death penalty).

I'm tired, though, so maybe there are exceptions. The bounty hunter thing is very interesting (and beyond my immediate powers of reason).

As much as I decry the loss of civil liberties ( I am a BIG Liberal ), I understand how these guys/gals flourish. State laws are so contorted,that law officers from one town to another are frequently bound from finding a felon on the run. I read the hyperlink about the abuses of bounty hunters, it only makes me more terrified of them.
Typer

If the case were to go before the Supreme Court today, I think that they would probably reverse their earlier decision. However, it hasn't gotten all the way there because:
-the criminal in question is usually facing more severe charges that take precedent over a bail bond issue.
-Not many people care if an accused criminal who skipped out on their trial has had their due process violated.
-Cases where an innocent victim was harmed are easily decided/settled way before the Supreme Court.

So on a. and b. you would be correct. On point c. it was probably a reflection of the times and would not hold today. This is pure speculation though.

Ooh, I have a bounty hunter story!!!

Once upon a time, I (at age 16) had a brief relationship with a particularly unscrupulous member of the Philadelphia PD (at age 27). (He was also a cross-dresser by night at a gay bar, but that's besides the point.)
Anyway, besides for having a particularly bizarre and shady lifestyle, he was in the business of selling (probably not legally) bounty hunter badges to whomever wanted one...to some VERY weird and shady people indeed.

The end.

Another consideration (not, I believe, utterly without legal weight) is that, except in cases of mistaken identity (in which case the bounty hunter is unquestionably in big trouble), there's no presumption of innocence. If the guy's a fugitive, he is ipso facto guilty of being a fugitive. (Hairy cases involving a "fugitive" who was actually kidnapped or suffering from amnesia or multiple-personality disorder might make for good TV movies, but don't have much influence on law.)

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

there's no presumption of innocence. If the guy's a fugitive, he is ipso facto guilty of being a fugitive.

John, are you sure about this? When he comes to trial for skipping, surely he'd have the presumption of innocence? What's the difference between an arrest warrant for someone who skips, and someone who's wanted on a pending charge of bank robbery? In both cases, there hasn't been a trial on the underlying criminal offence, and the Crown would have the onus of proof. In either case, if the police arrest on the warrant, they would have to Mirandize and respect the fugitive's other constitutional rights?

Erratum: for "Crown" in the above post, read "DA."

I believe the rules for contempt of court may be involved here. As you may recall, contempt of court means pretty much whatever a judge says, and you're guilty if the judge decides you are.

The underlying offense doesn't come into it. Innocent or guilty, if you skip, you're giving the justice system the finger.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

But contempt of court isn't a simple idea -- it's a legal concept, so of course it can't be simple. (^:

Seriously, there are two kinds of contempt, which are very different in purpose, procedure, and effect.

"Civil" contempt is when a person disobeys and *continues* to disobey a court order, so they are locked up or fined UNTIL they obey. It's not intended to be punishment for disobedience but a remedy for the party who obtained the order, and that's why it's called "civil." The contemnor (the person who committed contempt) is said to "have the keys to his cell" since as soon as the contemnor obeys, the fine or detention ceases. Civil contempt is treated as part of the underlying case because the contempt is inherently linked to the court order issued in the underlying case.

"Criminal" contempt is punishment for past disobediance of a court order or a general violation of the peace & dignity of the court. The fine or detention is for a fixed period, unlike civil contempt. Except for small fines or short detentions, criminal contempt cases are supposed to be referred to a different judge for a separate criminal trial. This is because:
1) as JWK said, contempt is a separate crime from the underlying criminal offense that the person is on trial for; and
2) giving the case to another judge avoids both the "contempt is whatever the judge says it is" problem and the appearance of impropriety from having a judge who was, for example, spat on in open court decide the fate of the spitter. (^:

[Xgemina]

-Warning this is going to be a long post-

First of all the 1873 case that John B. talks about is: Taylor v. Taintor, 83 US (16 Wall) 366, 21 LEd 287 (1873)which stated:

When bail is given, the principal [defendant] is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties [bail bondsman]. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose.
Taylor, 83 US (16 Wall) at 371, 21 LEd at 290.

From what I understand this is derived from common law. However most states now have statutory law now regulating the Bounty hunters.

I got curious so I looked up the statutes in my state: South Dakota (which may be substantially different from other "civilized" states)

First of all there are no "bounty hunters" in SD, we have "runners" who work only for a specific bail bondsman and can only go after bail jumpers that used their bondsman.

To be a runner one must:
(1) That the applicant is a natural person who has reached the age of twenty-one years;
(2) That the applicant is a citizen of the United States and has been a bona fide resident of this state for more than one year last past;
(3) That each appointing bail bondsperson is obligated to supervise the applicant's activities, and be responsible for the applicant's conduct in the bail bond business; and
(4) That the applicant has not been convicted of, nor has pled guilty or nolo contendere to, a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude. The director of the Division of Insurance may waive the restriction relating to the conviction of, or plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude if three years have elapsed since completion of the sentence imposed by the court in connection with the violation.
SDCL 58-22-12

-the runner must pay a $10 license fee, have his photo and finger prints placed on record and pass an exam (mostly dealing with the financial side of the business - what can you accept as sureties, advertising, can't recomend lawyers, etc..)
Bail bondsmen and runners are licensed from the Insurance Dept of the state.

Second- the power of arrest by a runner.
SDCL 23A-43-29. Arrest of defendant by surety on violation of conditions - Recommitment and discharge of surety.

Any defendant who is released on the execution of an appearance bail bond with one or more sureties may, if he violates the conditions of his release, in vacation, be arrested by his surety, delivered to a law enforcement officer, and brought before any committing magistrate. At the request of such surety, the committing magistrate shall recommit the defendant to the custody of the law enforcement officer, and endorse on the recognizance, or certified copy thereof, the discharge and exoneretur of the surety. The person so committed shall be held in custody until discharged by due course of law.

A bail bondsman (or runner, acting for his bondsman) is the surety.
How can the runner, who is not a law enforcement officer arrest someone? By using a citizens arrest:

SDCL 23A-3-3. *Arrest - Citizen's arrest.
Any person may arrest another:
(1) For a public offense, other than a petty offense, committed or attempted in his presence; or
(2) For a felony which has been in fact committed although not in his presence, if he has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested committed it.

Notice it says for a felony in fact committed. But what happened to innocent til guilty, right? Right, but by not showing up at the appointed time the bail jumper has committed a felony:

SDCL 23A-43-31. Failure to appear after release as forfeiture of security - Felony or misdemeanor.
Any person who, having been released pursuant to this chapter, fails to appear before any court or judicial officer as required or fails to comply with the provisions of § 23A-43-4.2 shall, subject to the provisions of this title, forfeit any security which was given or pledged for his release and, in addition, shall:
(1) If he was released in connection with a charge of a felony, an alleged felony violation of §32-23-1, or while awaiting sentence or pending appeal or certiorari after conviction of any offense, be guilty of a Class 6 felony
-I did not add the misdemeanor section due to the fact that bail is rarely required for misdemeanors and nearly all the bail bondsmen deal with are felonies-

So by not showing up at your hearing you are guilty of a felony (It's pretty apparent to the court you are not there, thus committing a crime)

Now, what can a runner do in order to arrest you? A recent case in SD: State v. Shadbolt, 1999 SD 15, 590 NW2d 231, allows that a runner may use reasonable force.
(the case is about an unlicensed runner who made the keystone cops look good)

Reasonable force is of course a sticky point and varies from judge to judge, state to state, etc...

Lastly as for crossing state lines to "get your man" (with appologies to jti and the RCMP) SD requires:

SDCL 58-22-51. Out-of-state bail bondsperson - Notification of activities - Limitations on activities.

Any out-of-state bail bondsperson or runner entering this state shall notify all local law enforcement agencies in the area where the bail bondsperson or runner intends to conduct runner activities as defined in subdivision 58-22-1(5), including, at a minimum, the office of the county's sheriff, and also, if operating within a municipality, the office of the municipal police as to the bail bondperson's or runner's presence and intended activity and present evidence of out-of-state licensure. No out-of-state bail bondsperson or runner who is unlicensed in that person's state of domicile may conduct any runner activities in this state. No bail bond activities as prescribed by this chapter may be conducted by any person in this state unless that person is licensed in this state as a bail bondsperson as prescribed by this chapter. Violation of this section is a Class 6 felony.

So a runner may come in to grab a bail jumper but must inform the local PDs. And must be licensed in the state the runner is coming from.

So, you see it derives from common law and state statutes and undoubtably varies from state to state.

For more info check out 8 AmJur2d Bail and Recognizance §120 (1980) or here are some other recent cases:Green v. State, 829 SW2d 222, 223 (TexCrimApp 1992)or Moncrief v. State, Comm’r of Ins., 415 So2d 785, 788 (FlaDistCtApp 1982).
the cases deal with the conflict of the state statutes and common law in regards to Bounty hunters and bail bondsmen.

Hope all of that helped...

------------------
"Nuts!"
Gen A.C. McAuliffe
"The general's nuts."
unknown 101st AB grunt

[mr john]

JTI no course the goons can't bust in and haul Mr Williams away.But you were talking "involuntary servtude" I was just trying to illustrate that you can sign away certain rights in certain situations. And one right you can sign away is protection against what otherwise would be unlawful detention when you sign a bail contract.
The whole area is as clear as mud. As an unlicensed 'private citizen' i can enter South Dakota and make a citizens arrest on some one I KNOW has skipped bail. But if I violate any of the regulations for a licensed'runner' they will take my license away?

[Xgemina]

Sorry, Mr John, I should've reread my post before posting it.

A bounty hunter (or runner) derives his power of arrest from: SDCL 23A-43-29. Arrest of defendant by surety on violation of conditions - Recommitment and discharge of surety. This meaning that a BH can arrest anyone (felon or misdemeanor) who has skipped bail from the bail bondsman that the BH works for.

That really was as far as I needed to go to show the powers of arrest for a BH, but then I, like an idiot, throw in the part of Cit arrest.
To answer your question, yes you as a private cit may arrest someone you know has committed a felony. You would then turn the arrestee over to the police. Who may or not thankyou, give a lecture, etc..
However, if you are a bounty hunter you are getting back the money deposited with the court as a bond. Also the BH can transport his prisoner back to the jurisdiction where the surety is held.

If you as a "private cit" just make a cit arrest that's ok, you try and get the bond money for arrestee or transport him over state lines, then it's Bounty hunting and you may be charged with a felony (whether you are a resident or out of stater.)

Is that better, or did I just stir up the mud some more?

------------------
"Nuts!"
Gen A.C. McAuliffe
"The general's nuts."
unknown 101st AB grunt

[Lute Skywatcher]

Here's a movie based on the exploits of bounty hunter Ralph "Papa" Thorson:

{url]http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080907[/url]

One of my favorite movies because the opening scenes were filmed around where I group up. Too bad we moved away the year before, I could have met Steve McQueen and LeVar Burton.

------------------
"Age is mind over matter; if you don't mind, it don't matter." -Leroy "Satchel" Paige

[Lute Skywatcher]

OK, let's try this again:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080907

------------------
"Age is mind over matter; if you don't mind, it don't matter." -Leroy "Satchel" Paige

[Northern Piper]

Go away for a week and your thread drops off the face of the planet with these new pages...

At any rate, Mr. John, maybe we're talking at cross-purposes. What I was trying to get at in the Williams example is that even if Robin put in the contract that the venue operator could send in the goons, I would have thought the provision would be void for public policy - you can't contract out of your liberty in that way. I just don't understand the concept of a "contractual right of arrest" - maybe it is truly a difference between our legal systems.

Xgemina - thanks for the detailed info; basing the bounty hunter's authority in state law, enacted by the legislature, makes it more understandable than the "contractual right of arrest." However, I still don't get why the state can authorise the use of force by bounty hunters without regard to constitutional rights of the hunted, when they can't authorise state police to do so. But, it may just be implicit in that old Supreme Court decision.

Thanks for your comments, everyone - found it very enlightening.

[Xgemina]

jti--which constitutional rights are you talking about?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but are you talking about not needing to mirandize, or need for search warrant to enter the house the bail jumper may be in?

[Northern Piper]

both - miranda is just common shorthand for the right to consult counsel. Do the bounty hunters not have to allow their prey to consult a lawyer, or is it covered by the provision of turning over to a law enforcement officer that you cited? If they're out of state, are they allowed to take the guy straight back to their state, or do they have to take him to the local law enforcement officer? (I wasn't quite sure from the statute excerpts you posted.) If they have to take him to a law enforcement officer right away, I can see how a court can say that in the circumstances, we may not require full Miranda; but if they can take him out of state without going to the cops, shouldn't he be able to consult a lawyer?

The other point is the search. Does an arrest warrant also authorize the intrusion into a dwelling place, which may not even be owned by the guy they're looking for, or is a separate warrant required for that?

[depocali]

The big concept missing is the relationship exisiting between the bond company and the fugitive. Technically what a bail does is that it allows a person to post a monetary guarantee that he/she will show up in court on a certain date and time. When a bail bondsman puts up someones bail, that person is released into the bondsman's custody. Therefore he is on furlough, but really in the bail bondsman's care. Therefor a bail bondsman who send bounty hunters after someone is regaining a custody he did not lose.

Courts have decided to create a fiction where a bondsman is actually the accused's jailor untill he shows up in court. Once he does not show up in court he has "escaped" from his imprisonment and he can be brough back into the bondsman's custody.

Why then isn't state action? That is the real crux. The Supreme Court has not reviewed its case, and probably the biggest obstacle to a reversal is the fate many prisoners suffer throughout the rest of the world. No company is going to post bail if it isn't guaranteed it can recoup its losses by returning the fugitive within a specified timeframe. In other words, the big fear is that when a judge imposes a 100K bail noone will be able to pay it, and therefore will have to remain in prison while awaiting trial.

[Xgemina]

depocali has the right of it. Basically the relationship of someone released on a bond is similar to a parolee or someone on probation. You have already been informed of your rights (mirandized) and basically you're the same status rights wise as a prisoner to your bail bondsman.

An arrest warrant can gain entry to a house or dwelling that the officer has probable cause that the prep is in there. However, an officer can only search the house for the person and is allowed to only look in places large enough to hide someone, no looking through drawers, etc (obviously any illegal items laying about will fall under the plain sight doctrine).

IIRC, the officer is also allowed to search anything within arms reach (typically 3') of where they find the suspect. Perhaps we should invite bluepony here to tell us a police officers viewpoints/understanding.
Bounty hunters aren't going to be worried about finding anything illegal--they just want their jumper.

As for returning over state lines, that (I believe) falls back under common law, though some states may legislate it. SD allows out of state bounty hunters to transport their fugitive back to their respective state as long as they complyed with the statutes.

------------------
"Nuts!"
Gen A.C. McAuliffe
"The general's nuts."
unknown 101st AB grunt