Bail Agent vs. Public Law Enforcement.
Lets create some balance here. Police officers can not enforce civil contracts only criminal statutes. A bail agent can enforce both civil enforcement of contract law and criminal laws. Only licensed bail agents with accompanying support non licensed personnel can assist but the agent should be able the only authorized person to arrest period. Bail agents are civil contract enforcement agents.
Thank you for taking the time to read this informative document.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ruled - "it is not the duty of the police to protect the individual citizen...(That is right not you the citizen no matter want they want you to believe or think) court case listed.
(" Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, D.C.App. 1981).
Police have a very difficult job. Police are not specifically trained for private property protection. Police, at their respective academies are taught police procedures'. Police are not taught private property protection through constitutional civil contract law.
Bail Agents when properly licensed, qualified and equipped are always a better, more cost effective option then police when the revocation (arrest of defendant) of a bail bond is lawful.
Bail Agents can and will protect all persons on private property of client and public property. Bail Agents have a constitutional contractual obligation to the client and District Court.
Police have a great deal of immunity against taking any action under the "public duty doctrine." Police are not obligated to act on any citizens' behalf. Bail agents are obligated to act on behalf of an individual, defendant, cosigner, surety Insurance company, and public.
Bail Agents have more authority on private property from bail bonds than police based on constitutional civil contract law authorized by common law, federal law, and state law. In addition, bail agents represent the property owners or cosigners of a bail bond and the producer known as Surety the Insurance Company. The police, even off duty, have to follow the guidelines set forth in the 4th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Bail Agents do not have to follow 4th and 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution because of constitutional civil contract law authorized by the previous laws listed.
The police are not allowed to speak to anyone unless they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime may be afoot. Further, they must be able to articulate this suspicion in clear language. Bail Agents can interact with anyone at any time. Because they do not represent the Government and the Constitution does not apply to bail agents.
There are also civil law issues. Police work in the "criminal realm". They are not allowed to become involved in civil matters or determine legality of civil contract law agreements between a bail agent and defendant. Private property owner rights, surety bail bonds, lease agreements and other such issues are civil contract matters. The police have no knowledge or responsibility in these areas. Bail Agents have knowledge of a signed civil contract that provides authority and responsibility to enforce conditions of defendant's release. Bail Agents operate in both the civil and criminal realm. This is also another area that confuses police and prosecutors... Bail Agents can move freely between civil and criminal matters because of Federal and State statutory authority that is protected by the U.S. Supreme Court and State of Idaho preemption Idaho Title 18 and the Bail Act that protect the Bail Agent from any City ordinance that violate this supreme authority.
Arrest powers by Bail Agents can arrest for any City, County, and State or Federal law violated in their presence just like the police. They can also arrest for crimes not committed in their presence under specific circumstances (felony bail jumping while assigned to surety), just like the police. Warrant less "arrest powers" and use of force are the same. Immunity is the only difference. Bail revocation (power of arrest) by a licensed Bail.
Bail agents are the only authority who can cross state lines and arrest a person on a Fail to Appear or pretrial revocation for a misdemeanor when defendant is enlisted on the agent's bail civil contract.
No government agency or authority has this jurisdiction to cross state lines to arrest anyone for any misdemeanor for any reason.
Agent applies to these arrest powers to both federal and state laws for the use of force which are covered under the U. S. Supreme Court, Idaho Bail Act of 2009 and State of Idaho Title 18 preemption act.
"Each contributed to a judicial precedent that by virtue of a signed bail contract granted a third party surety full custodial rights over the accused, afforded the bondsman broad powers of arrest, custody, and retrieval over the accused (that far legitimized and exceeded those of law enforcement agents without any of the due process restrictions). Bail Agent dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the re arrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner."
Judicial endorsement of commercialized justice.
"The commercial bail industry has proven to be as resistant to judicial obstacles as it has been to legislative efforts. Indeed, as Feeley (1983: 77) points out, legal challenges to current bail practices have met primarily with 'numbing defeats'. Starting in the early 19th century, appellate courts began handing down decisions that consistently supported the monetary-based system of conditional pretrial release."
Leary v. United States (1912), Nicholls v. Ingersoll (1810) Taylor v. Taintor (1872)
"Each contributed to a judicial precedent that by virtue of a signed bail contract granted a third party surety full custodial rights over the accused, afforded the bondsman broad powers of arrest, custody, and retrieval over the accused (that far exceeded those of law enforcement agents without any of the due process restrictions), and legitimized the bondsman's hiring bounty hunters as sub agents."
"Even appellate reviews of the commercial bail system by the a liberal Supreme Court headed by Earl Warren (1953-1969) yielded only minor limits on the broad common law authority granted to bonding agents and bounty hunters."
Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Co., 1969; Livingston v. Browder, 1973;
Ouzts v.Maryland National Insurance Co., 1974.
"In the 1980s, a more conservative Supreme Court issued decisions such as Schall v. Martin (1984) and United States v. Salerno (1987) that articulate the judiciary's endorsement of preventive detention and the use of dangerousness assessments in bail decision-making processes. The courts have consistently displayed a willingness to endorse the privatization of a critical function of the criminal justice system and afforded judges, bondsmen, and bounty hunters considerable leeway in their respective decision-making capacities."