What would you do when bail bondsmen break into your home looking for someone who used your address?

[KyJim]

All this makes me glad my state, Kentucky, is one of a handful that outlaws bail bondsmen. It is a felony for an out-of-state bail bondsman to come into Kentucky and forcefully take someone into custody, regardless of any warrant from another state.

BTW, that 150 year old SCOTUS case, Taylor vs. Taintor, referred to in the news story doesn't say what it is purported to say. The opinion is here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/83/366.html. It's from an era when judges and lawyers barely spoke English as we know it today. A Wikipedia article about it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor.

 

[TXAZ]

...

BTW, that 150 year old SCOTUS case, Taylor vs. Taintor, referred to in the news story doesn't say what it is purported to say. The opinion is here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/83/366.html. It's from an era when judges and lawyers barely spoke English as we know it today. A Wikipedia article about it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor.

Thanks KyJim. I just read the link you provided, and am still a bit confused on what the SCOTUS opinion says in English or Texan.

Any summary would be appreciated.

 

[zukiphile]

[defensive force is not justified against an aggressor if] The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

At this point, with this information, with the clear warning regarding people acting within the law, using deadly force against the bondsmen is clearly not legal.

I disagree that using force against a bondsman is clearly illegal.

It isn't clear that some other provision of law allows a bondsman to enter a home with whom they've no relationship whatsoever. If someone with whom they've entered a contract defrauded them, then the surety's remedy is against the other party to the contract, not the occupants of a home fraudulently listed in one of their documents.

Neither a bail bondman's uniform nor a policeman's uniform confers immunity for illegal acts (though if a PO is genuinely acting within his authority as an agent of government, both he and his governing employer may be immune). Occupied home invasion isn't a mere burglary for drugs; it's the act of someone who has decided they want to get at the occupants, an act very aggressive by its nature.

Imagining that some who has said he is a bonding company employee is going to pry open your front door then have due regard for your safety would take a lot of faith in human nature; people forcing their way in while one's family are home can reasonably be seen as a grave threat.

As I said, the bondsmen were clearly identified to a nearly absolute certainty. They would have provided identification to twoseparate teams of police officers and would have been (ostensibly) acting under protection of the law.

That really doesn't help. That PO's have a degree of immunity in the discharge of their duties doesn't mean that their immunity flows to whoever they think they aren't going to stop from acting. That some PO's stood around while a crew of bondsmen tore open a homeowner's front door even while the man is calling 911 repeatedly may only speak to the limits of their judgement.

If accurately reported, the action of the local police deciding to leave the scene of a public disturbance and then refusing to respond after the third call to them is bizarre.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Aguila, you have misunderstood something.

But, as Spats McGee pointed out, this was a contractual arrangement between the perp and bond company, it wasn't a law enforcement action. And, as Mr. McGee further points out, the homeowner was not party to the contractual agreement.

The bondsmen, if they were following the law, properly and within limitations, were protected. They were performing a legal action of collecting a fugitive who was supposedly living in that place, and let's be serious, isn't it probable that 99% of people are going to LIE and deny entry when someone knocks and demands entry to remove a person?

I don't think I have misunderstood anything. I understand, in layman's terms, what "privity of contract" is and means. The fact that a scumbag provided a false address may or may not give a bail bond agent a legal right to bust into the address provided by the scumbag. I would respectfully submit that this is far from being a slam dunk in favor of the bail enforcement agents. The homeowner clearly was NOT a party to the contract between the scumbag and the bail bondsman. Why should it be automatically assumed that the homeowner -- who was not party to the contract and who knows nothing about it -- should surrender his right to be secure in his home? He didn't give anyone permission to enter his home.

Suppose I commit a crime and I get arrested. I found out your address somehow (doesn't matter how). When I get a bondsman to post my bail, I use your address ... then I take off for parts unknown. Are you honestly going to feel perfectly okay with letting a team of bail enforcement goons enter your house and toss it, looking for a person you may not even know and may not even have heard of?

REALLY? Because that's what you're saying.

I don't agree that the bail enforcement agents have a blanket right to just assume that the address is the correct address, and that the fugitive is inside that structure. I think there needs to be some sort of due diligence on their part to (a) verify that the fugitive actually lives at the address he provided, and (b) that he's there at the time they're forcing entry.

What I think you are overlooking is that no third party can give anyone permission to enter a property that said third party has no ownership/control interest in.

It will be intersting to see what a judge thinks.

 

[Spats McGee]

briandg, I'm going to unpack some of your statements, one at a time. I've bolded certain parts for emphasis.

. . . .This was a stupid decision. If the guy didn't want to have his door smashed open, he should have opened it. The bondsmen were clearly identified, and twice, he had cops on the scene who he could have ordered to accompany the bondsmen through the house. Those bondsmen should not have gone in like a swat team. . . . .

The same could be said if it had been honest-to-goodness, gang-affiliated home invaders. In fact, it reminds me of Clayton Williams' remark about rape from the 1990s. The homeowner has a property right in that door, one that is superior to strangers that feel like smashing it. The idea that some third party can put my (or another homeowner's) address on a court document and that somehow confers a right to enter and search, which is superior to the homeowner's right to exclude, upon a third party is ridiculous.

. . . . The bondsmen were clearly identified, and twice, he had cops on the scene who he could have ordered to accompany the bondsmen through the house. Those bondsmen should not have gone in like a swat team. . . . .

So what if the bondsmen were clearly identified? At my house, people enter either: (a) with permission; (b) with a warrant; or (c) by force. The first, I greet with grub. The second, I meet with suspicion. The third, I'll meet with force (assuming they don't have a warrant). I don't believe random felons can confer a right of entry and search on my house simply by putting down my address in their paperwork.

I don't know where you live that the homeowner "could have ordered [the police] to accompany the bondsmen," but I suspect that the police either: (1) would have agreed to a request to accompany the bondsmen, which would make this more like an action under color of law; or (2) they would have declined to participate, in which case you have a private party demanding the right to search my house.

I took a quick look at Westlaw and Taylor vs. Taintor. The Notes of Decisions, and the number of appellate decisions under it tells me it's not as strong as those bail bondsmen want to believe. There were quite a few bail bondsmen who appealed their convictions for breaking and entering, kidnapping, etc. I've got to give it a more thorough read, but my sense is that Taylor says that bail bondsmen can pursue a bonded person (not sure if that's the right term) into another state. I did not see anywhere that it said they can enter the private residence of someone unconnected to a case.

. . . . I'd like to point something out. If the castle and stand your ground laws are examined, many of them have a certain proviso. If a person instigates violence, (not violence that is life threatening, and justification for deadly force against him) he is still justified, even though he instigated the confrontation to use deadly force against the homeowner. . . . .

I'd like for you to point me to a law that would allow this. Specifically, one that would allow a party with no contractual or legal relationship to a homeowner to instigate violence.

The gist of most of these laws forbids using force to prevent a legally operating person from performing his duties or job.

I don't think that's accurate at all. You appear to assume that the bondsmen are "legally operating." I'm unconvinced. And most of the laws that allow some legally-permissible intrusion (such as bondsmen or car repossession, etc.) are based on some contractual or legal obligation between the person upon whom such intrusion is visited, and the intruding entity.

. . . .There is a comparison to be made. When a person is making collection calls, whether it's for a traffic fine or a thousand dollar default, it's perfectly fine to make calls based on any information given. In general, though, laws require that the collectors desist when verbally told that the defaulting party is not reachable from that phone or location.

Did you really just compare calling someone's phone to tearing the door open and searching the house? One is markedly more intrusive than the other.

 

[Spats McGee]

More unpacking:

. . . .The bondsmen, if they were following the law, properly and within limitations, were protected. They were performing a legal action of collecting a fugitive who was supposedly living in that place, and let's be serious, isn't it probable that 99% of people are going to LIE and deny entry when someone knocks and demands entry to remove a person?

Let's be serious: I don't care what 99% of people do. We're talking about people I don't know demanding entry into my home.

. . . .At this point, with this information, with the clear warning regarding people acting within the law, using deadly force against the bondsmen is clearly not legal. . . . .

I don't think it's all that clear. It's clear that the bondsmen think that they are acting within the law. I'm equally sure that in my state, the use of deadly force to repel a home invasion will be presumed reasonable.

. . . .As I said, the bondsmen were clearly identified to a nearly absolute certainty. They would have provided identification to twoseparate teams of police officers and would have been (ostensibly) acting under protection of the law. . . . .

What law gives them the right to enter any home they choose? Because I'm pretty confident that no such right exists at common law.

. . . . If a person shot one or more of those bondsmen, they would have to be assumed (clearly) guilty of use of illegal deadly force since the bondsmen were performing a completely legal service. After a long, drawn out confrontation that included two sets of police officers accepting the legality of their actions, there should have been no doubt that they were bondsmen.

If the homeowner had fired on those bondsmen and he had no reasonable proof that he was justified, the only thing that can be believed is that he deliberately shot in an illegal and unjustified manner. . . .

I think you put a lot more weight in these folks being bondsmen than I do. Their actions in coming to the house, knocking on the door, and talking to the homeowner are all completely legal. At the point when the guy starts breaking open the door, your opinion and mine diverge dramatically.

. . . .A lot of the comments seem to suggest that the law isn't important, that a homeowner has the right to shoot no matter what the circumstances are. Not true. The laws clearly indicate that making legal entry into the home by a bondsmen is not an illegal violent attack on the person or property is not an excuse to shoot. Just wanting to shoot the guy who broke into your house does not mean that that you can.

What laws are those? Is there some law that says that if a felon puts my address down in court paperwork without my knowledge, I have to let his bondsmen search my house? I'm moderately familiar with the bonding system in AR and I've certainly never seen such a law. Please point me to one.

I'm also not willing to presume that the actions of the bonding agents is legal, just because they're waving a SCOTUS decision around. I'm pretty sure I'm better at reading those than they are.

. . . .The homeowner would have been absolutely unable to support an claim of 'reasonable belief' without some very, very solid proof that his life, safety, property were under immediate threat of very serious injury.

Three people forcing their way into my home armed with a battering ram, stun guns and pepper spray isn't enough?

 

[zukiphile]

I don't know where you live that the homeowner "could have ordered [the police] to accompany the bondsmen," but I suspect that the police either: (1) would have agreed to a request to accompany the bondsmen, which would make this more like an action under color of law; or (2) they would have declined to participate, in which case you have a private party demanding the right to search my house.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporter's version of events, but his story makes the option of any help from police impossible. Ordering the police to oversee the bondsman wasn't an option for this homeowner. By his third call, the police were no longer responding.

What I don't know about police work would fill a library, but mere prudence suggests that the POs should have told the bondsmen that they were trespassing and had to leave, or have offered to the homeowner to accompany the bondsman on a tour. It might save a lot of paper work later too.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The homeowner would have been absolutely unable to support an claim of 'reasonable belief' without some very, very solid proof that his life, safety, property were under immediate threat of very serious injury.

I'm pretty certain that the "castle doctrine" laws of many states expressly provide that, if someone is in your house illegally, the presumption that the lawful residents are in danger of injury or death is automatic.

Allow me to use Pennsylvania law as one example. The full statute can be found here; if you don't want to believe me you can read it yourself.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
...
(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

The incident under discussion appears to satisfy both requirements. Of course, you're probably going to argue that the entry was lawful. I think in such a case the homeowner's actions would have to be viewed from the perspective of the homeowner, or a "hypothetical reasonable man" standing in the homeowner's shoes. If you, a homeowner, know that neither you nor your wife has ever signed a bond contract giving bail enforcement agents a right to force entry into your home, wouldn't it be reasonable for you, as the homeowner, to believe that the forced entry is unlawful? That's all the PA law requires.

You keep throwing in words such as "certainly" and "absolutely" in an effort to strengthen your arguments. As I said before, I don't think there's anything "certain" or "absolute" about this incident. I'm pretty sure that the legal right of the bail agents to force entry into a house owned by someone who wasn't named on the bond is a lot less clear and certain than you seem to believe.

I hope we get some follow-up when this goes to court.

 

[Spats McGee]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporter's version of events, but his story makes the option of any help from police impossible. Ordering the police to oversee the bondsman wasn't an option for this homeowner. By his third call, the police were no longer responding.

What I don't know about police work would fill a library, but mere prudence suggests that the POs should have told the bondsmen that they were trespassing and had to leave, or have offered to the homeowner to accompany the bondsman on a tour. It might save a lot of paper work later too.

The police accompanying the bondsmen into the house is what's known in AR as a 'civil standby.' It happens when one party wants the police to accompany them just to ensure that things don't get out of hand. Think: ugly divorce and one side needs to retrieve belongings from the marital residence. These aren't ordered, though. Whoever wants it calls the police and asks for it. Some departments do them, some don't. They're certainly not ordered by the homeowner, who has no authority to order the police in that way. What's more, the police are strictly there to keep the peace. As an example, in the case of divorces & civil standbys, the officers will not even help one party get property that is specifically granted to that party in the property settlement. That's a civil matter and any dispute about that has to go back to court over it.

The police could get involved in a situation. If they did, that's fine, and they would be allowed inside my home once they'd gotten a warrant. If they chose to stay out of it, then (I contend) it's a purely civil matter to which I am a stranger. In that case, I think my right to defend my home likely trumps a bonsman's right to enter my home searching for a fugitive.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .I'm pretty sure that the legal right of the bail agents to force entry into a house owned by someone who wasn't named on the bond is a lot less clear and certain than you seem to believe. . . . .

I will also say that, had the homeowner actually bonded the person out of jail and signed on the dotted line, I think we'd be having and entirely different discussion.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...bounty hunters..." Have no legal right to do any such thing.
"...“We have more jurisdiction than police officers,”..." Depends what Florida law actually says though. I very much doubt bounty hunters are even mentioned in any law or have any kind of extra authority. They're civilians and the badges the guys are wearing mean nothing.
If they "break into your home" they have committed a felony. Call Police.
"...supervisor ordered responding officers..." Sounds like a law suit to me. Call a lawyer.

 

[briandg]

I'm also going to take these all in order as possible and address only the important parts.

Now I am posting this with one assumption. That these bondsmen, who haven't got the same responsibilities as police yet have clear legal limitations and responsibilities, I am speaking ONLY AS IF THEY HAD COMPLETELY STAYED WITHIN THE LAWS. It's been established that they had acted within legal bounds to a point that they were not prevented from acting or arrested for these actions. The article made no statement whatsoever about the men violating any laws.

I am also speaking as if they had stayed within the laws, and that the state provisions are also like the missouri statutes that say, within a sentence or two, that no physical violence against a person who legally enters under any business the home is permitted. You can't shoot a cop or fireman, or even a gas company employee. That part is quite clear. The homeowner would not have been justified in shooting, he knew within a very slim margin that the action was legitimate.

Zukifile, I really can't understand what you have just said. If the bondsmen were there to retrieve the bail jumper and those laws for that jurisdiction were followed properly, then use of force against them is not legally permitted unless and until one of them clearly threatened the safety of the people or property with harm. You cannot use force unless you are genuinely fearful of injury (according to law), and whether or not the the person legally or illegally entered seems to be irrelevant. You cannot shoot without reasonable fear, and it appears that breaking a door down and walking in isn't enough.

Now seriously, a team of policemen cleared with their supervisor that the team was legitimate, that they had a legal right to find and apprehend the fugitive in a place that he listed as his home. If this homeowner chose not to comply, he was, in essence, in the same position as someone who refused entry to a government official with a warrant. Both have a state approved right of entry.

The argument that has been made that even policemen may be frauds isn't related to this concern. A homeowner can kill anyone who he believes, or pretends to believe is a violent criminal masquerading as a cop. The laws do not protect that, unless other portions of the law are in effect.

Now here's the question. Do you truly believe that the guy would have been justified in killing the people who entered his home? Do you believe that he had legal immunity if he had killed an official government agent under those same conditions? Both are covered under my state law, and many other states.

I don't think that you do and you are just saying this because you don't like the facts as they have been portrayed by this obviously biased press story.

What I think you are overlooking is that no third party can give anyone permission to enter a property that said third party has no ownership/control interest in.

It will be interesting to see what a judge thinks.

I'm not overlooking this. That is in essence all that matters, whether or not they can be proven to have broken a law.

What Colas says he didn’t know: His cousin used his address when police asked where he lived. That gave the bounty hunters — referred to as bail bond agents in Florida and bail recovery agents elsewhere — a right to locate and detain Gabriel at his listed residence.

As private agents licensed by Florida’s Department of Financial Services and empowered by Florida Administrative Code, they do not require a search warrant to enter the home where they believe the fugitive they’re seeking is residing.

I'm quoting the article. An article that seems to be biased to the other side and sympathetic to the householder. The article appears to be saying that the invaders were following the law.

Spats, all due respect to a lawyer and overall very smart guy, look at what you said.

The homeowner has a property right in that door, one that is superior to strangers that feel like smashing it. The idea that some third party can put my (or another homeowner's) address on a court document and that somehow confers a right to enter and search, which is superior to the homeowner's right to exclude, upon a third party is ridiculous.

You didn't say that it was illegal, did you? You said that you didn't like it. If it's unconstitutional it would have been decided long ago, and unless the law it struck down, it remains legal. That is a very big problem to me. You referred to common law, your personal beliefs and opinions. Whatever state these events happen in, it was local to fla, and I am speaking of MO, which is probably similar to fl. It doesn't specifically address the question of whether the agents legally had a right to enter the home. What it says is that if the agent had the legal right the homeowner can not legally use force just because he violently opened the door and then walked in. We can debate forever if the bondsmen had legal right as applied to defense, that's not as important as whether the homeowner chose to shoot despite the large amount of evidence that the agents were not just thugs in disguise who were attacking with no legal right. Reasonable belief is not as vague as many people want it to be.

Fla statute

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

mo statute

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

I don't think that's accurate at all. You appear to assume that the bondsmen are "legally operating." I'm unconvinced. And most of the laws that allow some legally-permissible intrusion (such as bondsmen or car repossession, etc.) are based on some contractual or legal obligation between the person upon whom such intrusion is visited, and the intruding entity.

There is no clear statement anywhere in the applicable news story that what the agents did violated either florida or US laws. There are a number of references that official FL statutes allow the action.

As private agents licensed by Florida’s Department of Financial Services and empowered by Florida Administrative Code, they do not require a search warrant to enter the home where they believe the fugitive they’re seeking is residing.

What more can be said?

Three people are taking strong exception to what I have said. Referring to a direct quote from articles, laws, black and white issues such as "you can't shoot a guy who has a legally supported right to enter your home" use of the word clearly is appropriate. You just read the article, you just read the laws regarding it, can there be any doubt when the event portrayed in the article was in fact covered by the applicable laws stated either in the article itself or official reports of the statutes? Those entries I posted are from the state laws themselves, not a hash tag search.

All three arguments are about property laws and protection that don't appear to apply by the state laws, even the reporter won't say that a law was broken. There does not appear to be a violation of any law on the part of the police or the agents. From what I saw in that video, there was no threat made or implied. Open the door and let us search,or we break down the door and search, without your permission, and then we are going to be on our way and leave you alone.

Now what would my reaction be? I'm already going to be armed. I might and might not demand to see their papers. I will probably refuse them entry no matter what those papers say, and call police to monitor their entry. They will be allowed in when the police arrive to act as witnesses and protection against them. Hell no, I'm not disarming myself while they are in my home, and they will never be allowed out of my sight.

What will I say to those bondsmen?

"I'll let you in when I am certain that you don't mean to harm me, and I have some protection against you in case you aren't who you say you are."

If I have to clarify it further:

I don't believe you, until the police arrive, you aren't welcome here. I don't trust you, you're scaring the hell out of my wife and daughter and myself, and I'm afraid of what sort of terrible things you might do. you haven't provided acceptable proof and I know very well that you don't belong here. I don't have a fugitive. When I'm sure of my safety you can come in.

If you disobey my wishes and break through that door I'm going to have to assume that you mean me harm and I'm going to kill every damned one of you.

If they break through my door with weapons or break through and threaten me and I kill them all, then my state's judicial system will decide if I was being reasonable in my belief that I was in danger. If they decide that I violated that single principle, that I felt certain that I was in physical jeopardy, I'm going to be handed over for prosecution.

There's one more point that I'd like to make, but it probably won't make any difference to you guys.

This wasn't just a fishing expedition, throwing a bunch of hooks into the water and hoping to snag the fugitive. The fugitive told the bondsmen that he could be reached at that home. Since the article stated that there is a provision in the laws of that state that allows entry to the home that is provided, the bonding agents apparently had a legal right.

Now here's a thought. If he failed to appear in court, If he had an outstanding warrant, I suppose, was he a fugitive from justice? If they were indeed harboring a fugitive from justice instead of just a bail jumper, I wonder how it would have played out then? Just wondering.

 

[briandg]

I really don't have anything more to say and won't reply again.

To me a summary is that the guys appear to have acted legally. The article supported that, and nowhere in the article was a statement that the bondsmen broke a law.

The guy obstructed legal efforts to recover the fugitive, that's his right, I guess. There may be legal penalties for that, but I don't know.

Once we get past that, there's really nothing more that requires argument. They did it, legally, and they were allowed to do it by professional law enforcement officers. I don't know if there was even any question about the legality of it in the end, he just wasn't going to cooperate and they proceeded in a legally approved manner. I watched the video and what I saw was a bunch of pricks, and a very predictable outcome.

Little pig, little pig, let me come in."
"No, no, by the hair on my chinny chin chin."
"Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in."

It wasn't wolves and pigs, and despite the comparison, it wasn't like being raped by clayton williams.

If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.'

It's not rape, it was legal. You don't have to enjoy it, just accept it. If you don't pay taxes, the government will go to extreme lengths to recover them. Until a law is broken, it's simply not a crime, just a nasty reality.

 

[briandg]

I have to admit, however, that if someone had blown Dog the bounty hunter's head off, I don't see how anyone could argue against it. Would I let someone who looks like that bust my door open and survive it? No amount of paperwork would have made me feel safe enough to allow him access to my home and family.

There are a whole lot of emotional gray areas but emotional gray areas don't make laws. That's why we have lawyers.

 

[TruthTellers]

If these bail bondsman were any good, they would have done a stakeout to surveil the house beforehand to confirm that the suspect they were after was there before they tried to take him in. They probably didn't because that costs them money.

So, at the end of the day the victim here is the innocent homeowner and there need to be limits on bondsman and what they can do. Currently it seems there are no protections for people who are not the fugitives being sought.

It's all but illegal for law officers (without probably cause) to barge into your home without a warrant, but when it's a private party doing it that's just fine?

 

[Jim Watson]

All I can say is that I hope the Florida legislator who introduced a bill to allow bond company employees such overreaching authority gets his address shown to a skip tracer.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

briandg --

By your admission, ALL your arguments are based on your assumption that the bail enforcement agents were acting completely within the law. You seem to accept that as a given. I think the dispute here is that some of us do not accept that as a given.

In the end, assuming it goes to court, that's what a judge will decide.

 

[briandg]

That is not an assumption. The report stated it as fact that the agents had the right, look in the article. The lawyer for the homeowner could not provide any legal documentation that forbade it, instead he said

“What gives these individuals, who are just basically hired contractors, [the right] to go into a third party’s home and destroy other people’s property?”

He could not provide any evidence that the law was broken, so he used a rhetorical trick to confuse the readers.

If a law had been broken, really consider this, if a law had indeed been broken, charges would have been filed and that information would have been provided. Instead of information regarding criminal charges against the agents, the lawyer stated that he complained to the mayor, to the police chief and county commissioner about the actions of the police officers and made no attempt with the DA (that was reported) to file charges against the agency.

This isn't an assumption by any definition, this is simply repeating what has already reported, and despite the apparent hostility to the agents and their actions, the reporter failed to provide even a shred of evidence that they had broken any laws. In fact he stated that they acted legally.

If the reporter was lying about the whole thing, that's not my fault, not my problem, I'm talking only about the incident as it was reported.

This is all in the article, the article and the reporter made no claim that a crime was committed and in fact, said that the agents worked within their "rights".

I can't force you to believe anything or change your mind about it. But if you really want to prove that the agents broke a law, prove that by providing statutes from the legal codes of florida. Your thoughts and beliefs don't mean a thing, only the laws and how they are eventually interpreted by courts.

My only objective in this was to prove as thoroughly as it can be proven that using violence against the agents would have been illegal, and as shown by the video and written by the reporter, using violence against the agents would have probably violated the published fla state laws. There just isn't anything that the agents did that would be construed by a "reasonable person" as justification for using force against the agents.

I hope that you will read the entire article again, slowly and carefully, fully examine everything that was said. Make your own choice and believe whatever you want to believe, I can't compel you to do anything.

 

[KyJim]

Thanks KyJim. I just read the link you provided, and am still a bit confused on what the SCOTUS opinion says in English or Texan.

Any summary would be appreciated

The state of Connecticut charged a fellow by the name of McGuire with grand larceny. Sureties pledged to pay McGuire's $8,000 bail if McGuire didn't show up in court at the date appointed. McGuire went to New York and was arrested at the request of Maine and extradited and imprisoned in Maine. Because of this, he didn't make his Connecticut court appearance. The state of Connecticut sued and recovered the $8,000 bail from the sureties who appealed it up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The sureties did not know about the charges or even McGuire's imprisonment until after he failed to make his Connecticut court appearance. They argued that this met a recognized exception which excused their obligation to pay the $8,000.

The Supreme Court said the exception did not apply because McGuire had been placed in their custody and that when they "allowed" him to go to New York, they surrendered that custody to another (NY and Maine). This was different from the recognized exception where the governor of a state gives up custody to another sovereign, thereby excusing the obligation of the sureties to bring the defendant before the trial court. Thus, the sureties were responsible for the $8,000 bail.

As you can see, this was a contract action and the language of the court below about the ability to break and enter into a house in another state is technically dictum.

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. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed.

 

[zukiphile]

It's all but illegal for law officers (without probably cause) to barge into your home without a warrant, but when it's a private party doing it that's just fine?

If you signed a contract permitting the bonding company's agent to do that, it is just fine in many states. It's something you've bargained away in exchange for the bonding company posting 90% of the court set bail.

The problem here is that the homeowner never did bargain that right away.

Now seriously, a team of policemen cleared with their supervisor that the team was legitimate, that they had a legal right to find and apprehend the fugitive in a place that he listed as his home. If this homeowner chose not to comply, he was, in essence, in the same position as someone who refused entry to a government official with a warrant. Both have a state approved right of entry.

That is incorrect. POs are not trained to or invested with the authority to make that conclusion. Someone in his own home who refuses entry to a bondsman to whom he has no relation is not analogous to one who has refused a government agent with a warrant because the bondsman isn't a government agent and does not have a warrant.

As private agents licensed by Florida’s Department of Financial Services and empowered by Florida Administrative Code, they do not require a search warrant to enter the home where they believe the fugitive they’re seeking is residing.

What more can be said?

Quite a lot more about how contracts and rights work. A reporter, bondsman and the police are not authorities on how these work.

The idea that the FL Department of Financial Services can license agents who can enter any and every home in which they have concluded their man is "residing" without the protection of incorporated federal rights is impausible, and it's the sort of implausibility that makes it unreasonable to rely on the article for valid conclusions of law.

That is not an assumption. The report stated it as fact that the agents had the right, look in the article.

Why do you think the reporter knows enough to make that assertion knowledgably?

The lawyer for the homeowner could not provide any legal documentation that forbade it, instead he said

“What gives these individuals, who are just basically hired contractors, [the right] to go into a third party’s home and destroy other people’s property?”

He could not provide any evidence that the law was broken, so he used a rhetorical trick to confuse the readers.

If a law had been broken, really consider this, if a law had indeed been broken, charges would have been filed and that information would have been provided.

Unless the police didn't want to.

It isn't a trick to pose a question. People aren't prohibited from entering your home only if you provide proof that they are prohibited. That isn't how individual rights work. You have the right to keep others from your home unless they have authority to enter.

In this instance, the bondsmens' claims to authority were problematic.

I can't force you to believe anything or change your mind about it. But if you really want to prove that the agents broke a law, prove that by providing statutes from the legal codes of florida. Your thoughts and beliefs don't mean a thing, only the laws and how they are eventually interpreted by courts.

Here you go.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's incorporated, so it applies in FL too.