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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a home owner for the last 20 years, I have no reason to believe that anybody breaking down my door and claiming to be bondsmen looking for someone I don't know living at my address are valid.

This reminds me of cops doing no knock warrants at the wrong address and getting shot and the homeowner not being prosecuted because the homeowner was within his rights.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...nly-Served-Warrant-at-His-Home-493885861.html
 
In Texas a bounty hunter may not enter a residence without permission.they have no special rights to avoid dying attempting a home invasion than any other criminal.

Please see the DPS site for reference to the relevant statutes.

Edit: the question originally posited is what would you do, not what would you do in Florida. If Florida, my first answer would be, move the heck out of Florida. :p
 
Last edited:
zincwarrior said:
In Texas a bounty hunter may not enter a residence without permission.they have no special rights to avoid dying attempting a home invasion than any other criminal.

Please see the DPS site for reference to the relevant statutes.

Edit: the question originally posited is what would you do, not what would you do in Florida. If Florida, my first answer would be, move the heck out of Florida. :p
Click to expand...

Correct ZincWarrior:

Texas Occupations Code
Sec. 1702.3867
Execution of Capias or Arrest Warrant; Offense
(a) A private investigator executing a capias or an arrest warrant on behalf of a bail bond surety may not:
(1) enter a residence without the consent of the occupants;
(2) execute the capias or warrant without written authorization from the surety;
(3) wear, carry, or display any uniform, badge, shield, or other insignia or emblem that implies that the private investigator is an employee, officer, or agent of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state; or
(4) notwithstanding Section 9.51, Penal Code, use deadly force.


While I agree with Glenn that pulling a trigger is an instant life-complication, even "if you win in all venues", there are enough faux-police incidents that I could easily understand, as a juror, that the homeowner was in fear of their / family's life. This juror votes NOT GUILTY.

(as to item 3 above, when I first saw Dog the Bounty Hunter on TV, I thought he had a legit badge as some type of constable / armed court officer.)
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup, and failing to engage in due diligence has consequences. Without a real badge and a warrant they may as well be guys looking to rob a dealer that went to the wrong house.
 
Am I wrong reading that there was no armed home owner involved in this?..

Seems to me this wasn't really a stand off it was an unarmed man. I could not see those bail agents behaving that way with a green dot on them.

Had the home owner been armed, had they been told basically break my door down and Im going to dump mags of rounds your vests cant stop into you, I would think at a minimum youd get a police negotiator and those clowns wouldve been disbanded.
 
riffraff said:
Am I wrong reading that there was no armed home owner involved in this?..

Seems to me this wasn't really a stand off it was an unarmed man. I could not see those bail agents behaving that way with a green dot on them.

Had the home owner been armed, had they been told basically break my door down and Im going to dump mags of rounds your vests cant stop into you, I would think at a minimum youd get a police negotiator and those clowns wouldve been disbanded.
Click to expand...


The question posed above riffraff is :

"So put yourself in the position, what are you going to do?", and less on the details of what this homeowner did.
 
I have a couple of 4 legged first responders in my house. Anyone trying to enter my house without my permission would first need to get by them. If they in anyway injure my animals they would be introduced to Mr Mossberg. I believe that defending my pets in my own house would be completely legal in this situation. Either way I bet a couple of barks from my 2 girls would greatly discourage any unwanted entry.
 
This is funny, something very similar happened in my county a couple of years ago. Bondsman, looking for someone they bonded who skipped court, went to their last known address. This was a few months after they had bonded the suspect out. Upon arriving at the address, they see a car in the driveway that has a warm hood. They believe someone just got there, and believe someone is inside. After several attempts to reach someone at the door, INCLUDING FIRING A WARNING SHOT FROM A PISTOL, they spartan kick the door in and search the house, finding no one home. They left the house ransacked. The tenant of the house shows up as they’re getting in the car to leave. They approach the tenant and question them, who then tells them theyve been in the house about two months and has never heard of the guy that they’re looking for.

The SO gets called. The bondsman cited the exact same law cited here. The local Sheriffs department and prosecutor decided against B&E charges, but the district attorney advised the tenant to seek civil redress. The bondsmen tried to settle but it went to civil trial. The judge was not kind to the bond agents. They paid nearly triple the bond that they were on the hook for to the tenant and property owner. The original suspect they were looking for was arrested a few days later on a traffic stop.

In general I detest bondsmen. Police often get as far away from them as they can. While bondsmen actions can be legal if done properly, there is very little required training to be a bondsman. Many of them don’t understand the legality, or illegality, of their actions. And once registered with the state, they can hire underlings to help them that are not trained at all. They’re every bit as bad with the “Wild West” mentality as anti-gunners try to paint the normal citizenry as being in relation to concealed carry. I’m also really surprised more of them haven’t made the news, and performed enough idiotic acts to spark reform in many states. We charged 3 with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill for shooting at a suspect driving away from them. We’ve had numerous other issues. Of course, when most “victims” of bondsman shenanigans are themselves career criminals there probably won’t be a big push for reform.
 
TXAZ said:
The question posed above riffraff is :

"So put yourself in the position, what are you going to do?", and less on the details of what this homeowner did.
Click to expand...
And the original question stipulated that you are armed ...
 
It's early in the morning and I'm still waiting on coffee to brew, so I'm not going to mess with getting quotes and circles and arrows to every argument laid out. A few quick points, though:

1. I don't rely on journalists to make correct determinations of the lawfulness of any but the simplest of actions. This is not one of those. In fact, the article specifically says the bondsmen are "empowered by the Florida Administrative Code," but see #2.

2. I took a brief look at FL law, including the FL Administrative Code, & found nothing that gives those bondmen any authority to enter this person's home. Even if I had, I would question the authority of the legislature to authorize bail bondsmen to search private residences without warrants.

3. To answer briandg's comment from earlier: Perhaps I just wasn't direct enough about it for you earlier, but yes, I think the bondsmen's actions in the video are illegal. At best, it's what we'd call Criminal Trespass in Arkansas. At worst, it's felony home invasion.

4. I feel certain that just about every bondsman in the country has heard of Taylor v. Taintor. I am equally certain that large numbers of them have misunderstood it.

5. The police cannot authorize a bail bondsman's forcible entry into a private residence. It doesn't matter if they can verify the bondsman's identity and the bond paperwork or not. The police do not have that power.

But back to the original question, and I guess my answer depends on a couple of things. What is first contact like? If it were a bondsman I knew personally, who showed up, showed me his paperwork, told me the tale, and asked to look around, I might let him. If it's bondsmen I don't know, they're not getting in. I don't care how much paper they wave around. If they got belligerent and announced that they're coming in, I'd treat it as a home invasion.
 
Interesting thread, and though I know nothing about law for the bondsman or for the homeowner, there is one thing readily apparent: the bondsmen are loaning/guaranteeing money without doing their due diligence. One would think, that a person that has many thousands of dollars on the line, said person would have checked the accuracy of facts to reach a certain comfort level of accuracy. Afterall, the bondsman are putting a great deal of trust into alleged criminals, so the burden should be on them to have enough comfort in the deal before extending bail.
 
I assume it is a crude version of statistical process control.
They balance out the cost of verifying customer particulars vs paying skip tracers vs losses on bail jumpers not found.
 
I'll ask this of our members that are of the legal profession. Does the paperwork for a fugitives apprehension held by the bounty hunter carry the same weight as an arrest warrant? If not they no have authority to enter the home regardless of what info the have. All I'll add to all those involved is if you are going to be judged by a jury for your actions you must act legally as what a reasonable prudent person would do in the same situation. Just because its your home DOES NOT MAKE IT AN EXECUTION CHAMBER.
 
Last edited:
From Texas, gateway to New Mexico!...

1. It does not.
2. I am not 100% certain but strongly believe an arrest warrant must be served by an actual officer of the court or authorized person (police, sheriff, constable, Texmex cook) and to quote the immortal bard "they aint." To affect entrance into private property I am sure of it.

The above does not apply to people who like sushi. They are viewed as potentiall;y being Californians who have wandered out of the AQZ (Austin Quarantine Zone) and need to be gently shepherded back before they become injured or get taken advantage of by local fauna, particularly gators and jackalopes.
 
It was mentioned above how the people at the door "clearly identified" themselves as to who they were and as such suggested the homeowner should just take that at face value.

Well, here are some DEA agents who clearly identified themselves in Houston. They announced that they were DEA. They had "DEA" on their shirts. They said that they had a warrant. However, they weren't DEA. They skedaddled when the homeowner said she was calling the cops.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/men-pose-as-dea-agents-in-ruse-to-get-inside-home-police
 
As a Texan, unless they identified themselves as proper law enforcement, they are just potential home invaders under the law. Like vampires, don't let the wrong one in. ;)
 
It's Florida kiddies.
Castle law applies.
Someone in your home without your permission and refusing to leave may be shot.
Fear of your life doesn't enter into it.
They're not cops with a search warrant.

I'm kind of amazed the LEO's just stood around watching.

Dog the Bounty Hunter is a cartoon.

AFS
 
Don P said:
I'll ask this of our members that are of the legal profession. Does the paperwork for a fugitives apprehension held by the bounty hunter carry the same weight as an arrest warrant? If not they no have authority to enter the home regardless of what info the have. All I'll add to all those involved is if you are going to be judged by a jury for your actions you must act legally as what a reasonable prudent person would do in the same situation. Just because its your home DOES NOT MAKE IT AN EXECUTION CHAMBER.
Click to expand...
It does not. I won't speak to every jurisdiction in the country, but in my experience, it works something like this:
  1. Defendant is arrested.
  2. Defendant has a bond set.
  3. Defendant gets bondsman to post the bond. As part of the bond agreement, defendant agrees to do a bunch of stuff, like call in regularly and appear in court ordered to do so.
  4. Defendant fails to appear and the court issues a warrant.
  5. Court also starts forfeiture proceedings against the bondsman for the amount of the bond.
  6. Bondsman goes looking for defendant.
  7. Bondsman brings defendant to court. He can then either remain on the bond or ask to be relieved.

I took a look at some bond paperwork in one of my files and it says the "Defendant will appear before the Court designated below at the time indicated and shall at all times render himself amenable to the orders and process of said court in prosecution of said charges and, if convicted, shall render himself in execution thereof. If the Defendant fails to perform any of these conditions, we will pay and forfeit . . . . " It also says that the Defendant will call every Monday between 8a and 8p.

So we have several related, but largely independent processes going on: (1) the court system with its orders to appear and arrest warrants; (2) the contract between the bondsman and the defendant; and (3) the (possible) forfeiture proceeding between the bondsman and the court.
 
But the paperwork you reviewed is the paperwork between the defendant and the court. What would be more interesting in connection with this discussion would be a sample of a bail bondsman's contract with a defendant.

That said, even the contract between the defendant and the bondsman is irrelevant, because in this case it was not the defendant's home that the bail enforcement agents broke into. As multiple posters have already commented, the defendant has no right to grant the agents permission to enter a property over which the defendant has no ownership or control interest, no matter what his contract with the bail bondsman says.
 
But the paperwork you reviewed is the paperwork between the defendant and the court.
Click to expand...

The language Spats quoted was from the bonding company to the defendant.

I can tell you that although it isn't exactly the same thing in the contracts I've entered with bonding companies when I am a fiduciary, the principle will be very similar -- they have the money, and to have access to the bond, I am going to give them whatever they decide they want from me. The first time I was presented with one of these documents, I asked why anyone would think I am crazy enough to sign something like that. The answer was that I didn't have ten million in cash to post with the clerk.

In the criminal context, the defendant is going to authorize the agents of the bonding company to drag him out of any place at any time if he violates the terms of the bond, i.e. does anything that could cost the company a penny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top