Ed Brown Speaks Up

[grixit]

Go to your happy place, Ed. Go to your happy place.

[Siegfried Shrink]

If dreaming up crazy plans was a crime, I'd be incarcerated till the heat death of the universe.
Where's the fun in dreaming up sensible rational plans?

I do wonder about the white horse, though. You can't always rely on one turning up when you want one, so you'd have to park one where it would not run away when the fireworks started and add a feeding and watering robot to maintain it for a few days. The rest of the plan sounds fine,as crazy plans go.

[notorial dissent]

Ed's problem has always been that his fantasies have always exceeded his abilitties, kind of like life in general.

[noblepa]

It turns out that several states (maybe all of them) forbid posting wanted posters for fugitives that say "Wanted: Dead or Alive" - or anything else that suggests killing the fugitive is encouraged.

I believe that that would be "Murder for hire" in just about any jurisdiction. Even offering a reward for capturing a fugitive could be construed as kidnapping for hire. That is why all reward now say "Reward of $xxx for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of John Dillinger".

[Gregg]

That said, is it true, as I have read, that a properly credentialed Bounty Hunter has rights that even police don't have in regards to capturing a fugitive?

[grixit]

That said, is it true, as I have read, that a properly credentialed Bounty Hunter has rights that even police don't have in regards to capturing a fugitive?

What i read was that a person out on bail is legally in the custody of the bail bondsperson. So if they skip, the bondsperson has the authority to physically apprehend them, wherever they may be found. The bondsperson is allowed to deputize that authority to a bounty hunter.

[fortinbras]

The case that said this is Taylor v. Taintor (1873) 83 USA (16 Wall.) 366, 21 L.Ed 287:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c ... 34165793

Essentially, when a defendant is allowed out on bail, he is transferred from the custody of the municipal jailer to the custody of whomever posted the bail money - the same person who hired (or who is) the bounty hunter. So that person is and always was, from the moment of transfer, the custodian and jailer of the defendant - not merely from the moment he skipped a court date but from the moment the bail was posted. As such that person never lost authority over the defendant, and is not asserting any authority to seize the defendant but only to exercise a degree of control he has already had.

Even so, a bounty hunter is not supposed to kill his fugitive - except under the very same circumstances he might be allowed to kill a total stranger, namely to save his own life or the life of another person from immediate deadly violence.

[noblepa]

The case that said this is Taylor v. Taintor (1873) 83 USA (16 Wall.) 366, 21 L.Ed 287:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c ... 34165793

Essentially, when a defendant is allowed out on bail, he is transferred from the custody of the municipal jailer to the custody of whomever posted the bail money - the same person who hired (or who is) the bounty hunter. So that person is and always was, from the moment of transfer, the custodian and jailer of the defendant - not merely from the moment he skipped a court date but from the moment the bail was posted. As such that person never lost authority over the defendant, and is not asserting any authority to seize the defendant but only to exercise a degree of control he has already had.

Even so, a bounty hunter is not supposed to kill his fugitive - except under the very same circumstances he might be allowed to kill a total stranger, namely to save his own life or the life of another person from immediate deadly violence.

I have no quarrel with the above, but I have heard of cases in which bounty hunters used physical force to break into the wrong house and terrorize the occupants, only to find that the fugitive is not there and the occupants have no connection to the fugitive. The occupants were denied recourse against the incompetent bounty hunters.

[NYGman]

I would think a Bounty Hunter owed a duty of care, and should be held criminally responsible with respect to actions taken against innocent parties. If not criminal, I would at least expect some type of civil exposure, with damages paid by the Bounty Hunter.

[wserra]

I have heard of cases in which bounty hunters used physical force to break into the wrong house and terrorize the occupants, only to find that the fugitive is not there and the occupants have no connection to the fugitive. The occupants were denied recourse against the incompetent bounty hunters.

I've heard of cases where sovcits sued over their right to drive, brought the ebil goobermint to its knees, and drove bareback happily for the rest of their lives. 'Course, it was bullshit.

Cite, please.

[fortinbras]

A bounty hunter has authority only over his defendant and not over strangers or their property. A bounty hunter can use reasonable force - such as kicking in a door - to get a fugitive in the fugitive's own house, somewhat different circumstances apply if the fugitive is in a hotel (for example). As for kicking in the door of the house of innocent strangers, the bounty hunter is fully liable and chasing his own fugitive might be an explanation that mitigates the issue of malice but he still is liable for the damages.

[Blackbeard]

Bail bondsmen are illegal in Illinois, and therefore so are bounty hunters.

[obadiah]

Bail bondsmen are illegal in Illinois, and therefore so are bounty hunters.

How does bail work without bail bondsmen funding it? Most people don't have that kind of cash or assets available.

[NYGman]

Don't Bail Bondsmen just magic up the money with a signature. It isn't real money, it is an accounting entry.

[fortinbras]

Usually, if the professional bondsman is known to the court as reliable, his promise is sufficient. But, whenever a defendant skips the bondsman must make good on the forfeited bond in full, paying in cash. Arguably a court could stop accepting the mere promises of a bondsman if it added up all the outstanding pledges and figured that if a sizable number of those defendants skipped the bondsman couldn't cover the bonds (this happened in at least one court during the Freedom Rides in the South in the 1960s).

For someone unfamiliar to the court to post a bond, the court may insist on cash - meaning actual US currency, not a check. There was a spate of Militia/SovTard types about 20 years ago trying to post "promissory notes" as bail and terribly surprised when these were rejected.

[notorial dissent]

They also have to be licensed and bonded and back ground checked, or at least they do in my state.

[Blackbeard]

Bail bondsmen are illegal in Illinois, and therefore so are bounty hunters.

How does bail work without bail bondsmen funding it? Most people don't have that kind of cash or assets available.

Basically the court serves as your bondsman. You pay them the 10% premium, and they come after you for the rest if you don't show.

[fortinbras]

In DC, several years ago, they introduced bail reform. Up to that time, courts were demanding substantial amounts which defendants were always getting from professional bondsmen, who were always charging 10% of the total amount even though they were never required to ante up that much. The reform consisted of release on own recognizance (i.e., without money) for defendants with any sort of local roots and no record of skipping out on bail. Defendants who did have a record of bail jumping would get hit with very high bail requirements, of the sort that required putting up a house as security.

One of the very pressing reasons for this sort of reform is not a lack of risk of skipping but the fact that a considerable number of defendants are minor league offenders - druggies, street criminals, and the like - with virtually no resources of their own, not even enough to pay the commission of a bondsman. So it was their relatives who put up their savings, their houses, and so forth, to bail them out -- and then the pillar of the community skipped out and ruined his innocent kinsmen.

So these people (mostly young men) were given one chance to skip bail for free and thereafter things got so tight (with a demonstrated track record that was a warning to his family and friends) that he might likely spend the time waiting for trial getting a taste of prison.