| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12234 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | tsuggs [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 16:00 ] |
| Post subject: | CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
Its a long read but well worth it. This case could be used in othe states regarding entry into residences. Note their conclusion! http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 17:00 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
sounds more to me an outright abolishment of entry to "third" party residences . . . . |
|
| Author: | B Williams [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 17:23 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
Good read, Tony. For years I've always been concerned about entering a third party residence, therefore, I don't enter them. At some point the defendant has to come out and I find the wait is much better than the potential liability in cases such as this. |
|
| Author: | tsuggs [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 17:51 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
One issue here, and there were several, was that the defendant listed that address as his residence on the bond app. So, the bail agent and recovery people thought they had the right to enter. What we have to do now, is CONFIRM those addresses before posting that bond or at least try to. Could mean losing bonds to other bail companies who wont bother to confirm addresses. Also, if the skip isn't at the address or at least he was not seen at the address, if the occupant so no, you can't come in, you can't go in. Better to call the pd and have them enter and search. |
|
| Author: | KARMA [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 18:10 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=10450 Quote: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 90,441 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES K. BURHANS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A bail bondsman has a common-law and statutory right to arrest his or her principal. 2. At a minimum, a bail bondsman does not have the right to enter the home of a third party, i.e., where the principal does not reside, where the principal is not seen, and where the bail bondsman does not have reasonable belief of the principal's presence, without the third party's consent. Very same type of case . . . guess Colorado does not keep up with the goings on in the Country. |
|
| Author: | tsuggs [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 19:54 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
In the CO case, the bondsman was relying on TvT to allow them to go "anywhere" to find the skip. Including the house that thought he actually lived. CO had other case that limited TvT and this Supreme Court ruling afirmed lower court cases in CO. It also afirmed the charges against them, of burglary. In CA, our penal code section states that we can go "anywhere" in the state to arrest a bail skip. Another code section states we can't enter a 3rd party residence without permission unless we see the skip in there. So, we have a similar problem here in CA. |
|
| Author: | Greyfox [ Fri 05 Aug 2011 20:28 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CO Supreme Court Ruling, No TvT in CO |
It really seems best to just wait out the skip most of the time. Sure you may take more time but you will greatly reduce your liability and not just that, but increase your own safety. The odds of a weapon being available in the house is far far greater than when the skip is walking down the street. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |