Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bounty Hunters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Michael Ledgerwood
    State of Washington a FRA may enter any establisment by any force necessary to retrieve their fugitive. The catch is the FRA MUST know and prove that the fugitive is in there - no guessing. A homeowner may shoot an FRA for residential burglary and not be charged even if said fugitive is in the house.
    Wow, another nice double sided blade in the works there! LOL! Do your job, and you could end up being legally killed! Probably another reason why I never touched that area of work, nor had the desire to!
    Deputy Sheriff

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Michael Ledgerwood
      State of Washington a FRA may enter any establisment by any force necessary to retrieve their fugitive. The catch is the FRA MUST know and prove that the fugitive is in there - no guessing. A homeowner may shoot an FRA for residential burglary and not be charged even if said fugitive is in the house.
      That's a state law, right? Please tell me it is. The reason I say this is because I had an insane brother-in-law who got out of security and went into bailbonds work. He eventually gave up because he saw how sucktastical it is, and because it just costed too much in Florida to get your own R bondsman license. (The ability to write bonds as an insurance agent.) Since a Bail Agent could hire a Class D & G Security Officer as an employee, I was hired on to provide polo shirted firepower and damage control. This meant I had to read a bunch of books on bail bondsman, including the "Bail Agent Training Manual" or some such from a California FRA company. Only door we could lawfully kick in was the fugitive's. FRAs in Florida had no inherant authority to carry guns (Which is why they hired me, my G gave my authority to carry anywhere in the state openly in "uniform," which consisted of a polo shirt with the agency logo on it, dockers, combat boots, and a bat belt...) but could if they had their CCW permit. BUT, they couldn't carry their CCW into a bar, or anywhere else, etc, where the G is good anywhere in the state.
      Some Kind of Commando Leader

      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

      Comment


      • #18
        As I understand it here in Colorado a bounty hunter, or the bondsman himself, may only legally enter the listed residence of the fugitive as it is listed on the bond record. This is what I have been told by leo's here. Haven't read the law on it.

        I do know that we do not allow bondsman or bounty hunters on property to look for or apprehend a fugitive. If we find out they are on property they are ordered to immediately leave property. Failure to do so places them into a criminal trespass and we may then arrest them.

        And I would guess that considering the "make my day law" here if they entered any residence they could get shot and killed by the resident, which would be legal (I mean a residence not listed on the bond paperwork only), though - again - I haven't researched this in the law.
        "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

        Comment


        • #19
          lets not be so hard on bail enforcement agents.. they're doing a job just like the rest of us in my opinion, I believe that bail enforcement agents should be more heavily regulated in every state, and also in a federal sense to conform with "this modern day and age".. updated legislation would probably help their status..

          i know here in Florida, it is illegal to represent yourself as a "bounty hunter" and third party fugitive recovery is also unlawful.. you must work for one and only one bonding agency at any given time.. and you are only permitted to hunt fugitives who jump bail that was issued by the agency for which you work.. bail enforcement agents, as they are properly titled, should have a reasonable amount of statutory privilege to hunt fugitives who have avoided justice.. its only fair to bonding agencies

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by dhcp
            lets not be so hard on bail enforcement agents.. they're doing a job just like the rest of us in my opinion, I believe that bail enforcement agents should be more heavily regulated in every state, and also in a federal sense to conform with "this modern day and age".. updated legislation would probably help their status..

            i know here in Florida, it is illegal to represent yourself as a "bounty hunter" and third party fugitive recovery is also unlawful.. you must work for one and only one bonding agency at any given time.. and you are only permitted to hunt fugitives who jump bail that was issued by the agency for which you work.. bail enforcement agents, as they are properly titled, should have a reasonable amount of statutory privilege to hunt fugitives who have avoided justice.. its only fair to bonding agencies
            The key word in your post is "reasonable." More regulation is needed to meet that criteria. As far as the proper title; that is up to the state.
            Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

            Comment


            • #21
              sure.. but some states just do not allow any kind of bounty hunting at all from my understanding.. regardless of what you prefer to call it.. bail enforcement in general should be both federally empowered and restricted, giving them unprecedented authority in every state.. the power granted to them by federal law today is highly filtered by many states..

              Originally posted by Mr. Security
              The key word in your post is "reasonable." More regulation is needed to meet that criteria. As far as the proper title; that is up to the state.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dhcp
                sure.. but some states just do not allow any kind of bounty hunting at all from my understanding.. regardless of what you prefer to call it.. bail enforcement in general should be both federally empowered and restricted, giving them unprecedented authority in every state.. the power granted to them by federal law today is highly filtered by many states..
                Would you elaborate on your idea of what "federally empowered and restricted" should be?

                Also, why should the states cede rights of legislation and enforcement of bail enforcement agents?
                "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

                Comment


                • #23
                  meaning.. they should be governed by the federal government and the federal government only.. states should not be permitted to intervene with restrictive legislation prohibiting the practice of bail enforcement within their territorial boundaries.. why? because when a bail bonding agency guarantees to any court that a suspect will appear when instructed to, and if that individual ends up with an FTA warrant, that same agency is usually in great financial jeopardy.. now is that fair? of course it's not.. and don't tell me they need to issue bail "more cautiously".. put simply, if it werent for bail bonding agencies, suspected criminals would sit in jail until acquitted.. i view bail bonding agencies as "contractors" of the government.. even though they realistically aren't, their services support the american justice system and allow a portion of it to function as it does today.

                  as far as what privileges or restrictions they should or should not have.. they should be allowed to act as third party bail enforcement agents in EVERY state.. lets face it.. just because you own a home, it doesn't mean you can repair your roof.. you call a professional to do so.. well in bounty hunting, there are certainly those that are "more proficient" at capturing the bad guys... and they arent necessarily those who write the bail.. i think training should be improved and federally mandated.. and I'm not talking a 36 hour course.. there should be a 4-8 week long program to ensure all agents are educated and capable of complying with the laws that govern them.. i think third party enforcement agents should be allowed to enter the homes of the suspects they are looking for.. either through power of attorney, which usually exists today, or in another scenario, where the suspect is "reasonably known to be inside at the time of bail enforcement".. hence, the bail jump is seen pulling up to his residence and is witneessed entering the dwelling.. etc..

                  better legislation, a little more freedom, and a unified bail enforcement system would help stablize and uniform the entire industry across the board.. no questions asked.

                  Originally posted by aka Bull
                  Would you elaborate on your idea of what "federally empowered and restricted" should be?

                  Also, why should the states cede rights of legislation and enforcement of bail enforcement agents?
                  Last edited by dhcp; 07-22-2006, 02:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    meaning.. they should be governed by the federal government and the federal government only.. states should not be permitted to intervene with restrictive legislation prohibiting the practice of bail enforcement within their territorial boundaries.. why? because when a bail bonding agency guarantees to any court that a suspect will appear when instructed to,
                    May I point out that the vast majority of those courts are state courts. So why shouldn’t a state be legislating and regulating bonds agencies and bail enforcement agents within their state?

                    and if that individual ends up with an FTA warrant, that same agency is usually in great financial jeopardy .. now is that fair?
                    The bonding agency has a choice whether or not to issue the bond. If they choose to accept the collateral placed to back the bond then they are freely accepting any potential risks of having to forfeit the bond amount, which they’ll make up on the other side when the seize the collateral. Not to mention that bond agencies are insured. Sorry, the argument fails.

                    of course it's not.. and don't tell me they need to issue bail "more cautiously".. put simply, if it werent for bail bonding agencies, suspected criminals would sit in jail until acquitted.. i view bail bonding agencies as "contractors" of the government.. even though they realistically aren't, their services support the american justice system and allow a portion of it to function as it does today.
                    Sorry, I must disagree that bonds agencies should in any way be thought of as a “contractor” of the government. Bonds agencies are in business to make a profit just like any other private business. You’re right that they are providing a service, but it is to the individual – not the government. The courts could care less whether a person makes bail or not, they are only interested in the person being in court when he/she should be, whether they come from home or get transported over from the jail.

                    as far as what privileges or restrictions they should or should not have.. they should be allowed to act as third party bail enforcement agents in EVERY state.. lets face it.. just because you own a home, it doesn't mean you can repair your roof.. you call a professional to do so.. well in bounty hunting, there are certainly those that are "more proficient" at capturing the bad guys... and they arent necessarily those who write the bail.. i think training should be improved and federally mandated.. and I'm not talking a 36 hour course.. there should be a 4-8 week long program to ensure all agents are educated and capable of complying with the laws that govern them.. i think third party enforcement agents should be allowed to enter the homes of the suspects they are looking for.. either through power of attorney, which usually exists today, or in another scenario, where the suspect is "reasonably known to be inside at the time of bail enforcement".. hence, the bail jump is seen pulling up to his residence and is witnessed entering the dwelling.. etc..
                    Okay, so you are at home with your family and a friend stops over for a visit. Unbeknown to you he/she just happens to have jumped bond. While sitting in the living room with your wife, kids, and your friend several armed men come smashing through your front door, yelling and screaming for everyone to get down on the floor – just like a swat raid. Now tell me, when did you sign away your rights? How are you gong to feel when your family is terrorized because this friend was seen entering your home? Who are you going to go to and demand that the damage to your home be paid for? If it is the middle of the night and they come barging in what would you be thinking?

                    I don’t know about you but I haven’t committed any crime. I didn’t jump bond. You have no right to enter my home just because some jumper is inside. Why should these bail enforcement agents have more rights than the police to forcibly enter your residence?

                    better legislation, a little more freedom, and a unified bail enforcement system would help stablize and uniform the entire industry across the board.. no questions asked.
                    As it would for the private security industry.
                    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I see you love to argue and invalidate points even if your argument in itself is invalid. Are you a police officer? You sure sound like one. I get the impression you're opposed to security personnel, bail enforcement agents, and anyone who holds any kind of "enforcement job" that is not associated with a government.. if law enforcement was capable of dealing with all the criminal problems of the world, the need for bail enforcement and security officers wouldnt exist.. but the reality is, it can not.

                      and by the way...

                      Okay, so you are at home with your family and a friend stops over for a visit. Unbeknown to you he/she just happens to have jumped bond. While sitting in the living room with your wife, kids, and your friend several armed men come smashing through your front door, yelling and screaming for everyone to get down on the floor – just like a swat raid. Now tell me, when did you sign away your rights? How are you gong to feel when your family is terrorized because this friend was seen entering your home? Who are you going to go to and demand that the damage to your home be paid for? If it is the middle of the night and they come barging in what would you be thinking?
                      very poor example..

                      a) you're harbouring a wanted fugitive from justice.. with or without knowledge is another story.. and no matter how states choose to title the offense, most have it criminally defined. simply put, don't associate with suspected criminals who refuse to comply with standard protocol of the criminal justice system.. thats not the bail bondsman problem.. they didnt create any liability for you, your "friend" did.

                      b) in my example, perhaps I didnt make this as clear as I should have, but if you spot the fugitive entering the residence listed on the bond or power of attorney, or entering a residence listed or not listed which they are the known owners or tenant of, bail enforcement should have absolute full authority to enter that dwelling.
                      Last edited by dhcp; 07-22-2006, 04:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by dhcp
                        I see you love to argue and invalidate points even if your argument in itself is invalid. Are you a police officer? You sure sound like one. I get the impression you're opposed to security personnel, bail enforcement agents, and anyone who does any kind of "enforcement job" that is not associated with a government.
                        No, your impression is incorrect, I am a security officer in a hospital.

                        I don't love to argue, but when you make such broad statements I will weigh in with an opinion or thought.

                        I am curious as to how my argument in itself is invalid? Care to answer the points I brought out and explain why they are invalid arguments?

                        I am not opposed to bail agents. I am opposed to unfettered restrictions by anyone on the rights of others. I also feel you are proposing that bonds agencies are in the business for reasons other than making a profit. Several people I know are bondsman and I know what they'd tell me.

                        I could care less if a suspect has his door kicked in, he waived his rights. But from the "tone" of your post it seems to me that you are arguing for a wide lattitude to bail enforcement agents. Are you by chance a bail enforcement agent or bondsman?

                        If that is incorrect, my apologies.
                        "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by dhcp
                          I see you love to argue and invalidate points even if your argument in itself is invalid....
                          Sorry. I'm w/ Bull on this one. Are you or have you worked as a BEA?
                          Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I am not a bail enforcement agent. However, my interest in bail enforcement stems from a family member who is in California. It would not pay for me to become a bail enforcement agent in the State of Florida. This is primarily why I am on the defensive when it comes to greatly restricting the ability of those who work in the field. Frankly, I think our state legislation on bail enforcement authority sucks. It just outright sucks. Compare it to western states like California or Hawaii, and you'll see that states which restrict bail enforcement as heavily as Florida does proves the practice is completely ineffective and may as well just be outlawed all together.

                            A bail agency should always have the right to apprehend a jumper or someone who potentially poses a financial liability to them, regardless of whether they do so in house or hire a third party to intervene. They do not have enough rights in many states or enough power. Here is an example I'd like you to consider.

                            The Florida statutes do not specically state that a licensed security officer may "arrest" or "detain" anyone at any time. Since security officers are just "licensed" and "registered" civilians in our state, they really have no statutory privileges over an ordinary civilian. Common law suggests that a citizen may detain another citizen for the purpose of apprehension by law enforcement if they pose imminent danger to those around them, or if a felony has been committed in the presence of the detaining citizen. However, there are exceptions to this rule. In this state, retail loss prevention associates specifically have the statutory right to detain those who they believe have stolen goods from the store they're protecting, for a reasonable period of time and only if it is believed that by detaining the person in question, those goods can be recovered. In house retail loss prevention in this state does not require a security license.

                            Why should uniformed officers not have a statutorily defined right to detain in the event of a crime while loss prevention associates who aren't even required to be licensed, and most arent, do?

                            Associate this imbalance in regulation with bail enforcement privileges. It's just not right. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't be restricted or governed. But at least in the State of Florida, they virtually have no authority as it is. I just feel federal level definition of permitted actions would help restore some integrity to the field of bail enforcement and uniform it country wide, and I believe the industry is in great need of revision, at least in most states.

                            Ask yourself why DOGG never comes to Florida to apprehend suspects. Because our laws suck for bail agents. Thats why.

                            Originally posted by aka Bull
                            No, your impression is incorrect, I am a security officer in a hospital.

                            I don't love to argue, but when you make such broad statements I will weigh in with an opinion or thought.

                            I am curious as to how my argument in itself is invalid? Care to answer the points I brought out and explain why they are invalid arguments?

                            I am not opposed to bail agents. I am opposed to unfettered restrictions by anyone on the rights of others. I also feel you are proposing that bonds agencies are in the business for reasons other than making a profit. Several people I know are bondsman and I know what they'd tell me.

                            I could care less if a suspect has his door kicked in, he waived his rights. But from the "tone" of your post it seems to me that you are arguing for a wide lattitude to bail enforcement agents. Are you by chance a bail enforcement agent or bondsman?

                            If that is incorrect, my apologies.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by dhcp
                              I see you love to argue and invalidate points even if your argument in itself is invalid. Are you a police officer? You sure sound like one. I get the impression you're opposed to security personnel, bail enforcement agents, and anyone who holds any kind of "enforcement job" that is not associated with a government.. if law enforcement was capable of dealing with all the criminal problems of the world, the need for bail enforcement and security officers wouldnt exist.. but the reality is, it can not.
                              Never said law enforcement was capable of dealing with all the criminal problems of the world. In fact, if you read other posts I've made at times I have difinitively stated that the police can not protect you - they are a reactive force for themost part - regardless of how much they'd wish to be otherwise.


                              and by the way...



                              very poor example..

                              a) you're harbouring a wanted fugitive from justice.. with or without knowledge is another story.. and no matter how states choose to title the offense, most have it criminally defined. simply put, don't associate with suspected criminals who refuse to comply with standard protocol of the criminal justice system.. thats not the bail bondsman problem.. they didnt create any liability for you, your "friend" did.
                              Did you miss the part about "unbeknown to you...."

                              b) in my example, perhaps I didnt make this as clear as I should have, but if you spot the fugitive entering the residence listed on the bond or power of attorney, or entering a residence listed or not listed which they are the known owners or tenant of, bail enforcement should have absolute full authority to enter that dwelling.
                              I agree that they should have the right to enter the individuals residence, but ONLY the individuals residence as given to the bonding agency. Tell me why it is so difficult to wait for the wanted individual to exit and be taken outside if he/she IS NOT in their listed residence?
                              "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by aka Bull
                                Did you miss the part about "unbeknown to you...."
                                did you miss the part about "known or unknown"? either way, why should it be the bail agents problem. you may not know the individual jumped bail, but if you're his or her "friend", chances are you know they've been arrested and charged with some type of criminal violation.. like I said, don't associate with law violators.



                                Originally posted by aka Bull
                                I agree that they should have the right to enter the individuals residence, but ONLY the individuals residence as given to the bonding agency. Tell me why it is so difficult to wait for the wanted individual to exit and be taken outside if he/she IS NOT in their listed residence?
                                umm.. if they know you're waiting for them, do you think they're going to leave until you do? and since you are so opposed to bail agents entering dwellings, what happens if that individual runs back inside before you can get him and slams the door in your face? you stand there chalking one up on the board for old fugee and return to your vehicle to setup another "stakeout"?

                                come on get real.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X