Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN)
http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

BOUNTY HUNTERS AWARDED 9MIL. OUT OF AZ
http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2315		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  KARMA [ Sat 21 Oct 2006 09:17 ]
Post subject:  BOUNTY HUNTERS AWARDED 9MIL. OUT OF AZ
IT TOOK THEM ALMOST 8 YEARS

2 bounty hunters get $9 mil in lawsuit

Michael Kiefer
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 20, 2006 12:00 AM


Two bounty hunters who were arrested at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in 1999 for carrying weapons aboard a flight, even though the airline had mistakenly authorized them to do so, were awarded $9 million by a Maricopa County Superior Court jury Thursday.

Southwest Airlines refused to release information to federal prosecutors that would exonerate the men unless they waived their right to sue in civil court, court documents and the two men's attorneys said.

"As I told the jury, everyone makes a mistake," said Phoenix attorney Richard Gerry, "but you cannot use extortion to avoid responsibility for your mistakes."

The attorney for Southwest Airlines declined to comment.

"We did not ask the jury for any amount of money," Gerry said.

But the jury responded by awarding each man $500,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.

Leroy Devore, 45, and Thomas Hudgins, 43, both of Richmond, Va., were happy with the jury award.

"In the beginning, all we were asking for was some help," Devore said. They wanted the criminal charges dropped.

"I was just glad we had a chance to tell our story," Hudgins said. "It took seven years."

According to the two men, their attorneys and court records, on Sept. 11, 1999, Devore and Hudgins checked in at the airport in Baltimore for a flight to Phoenix.

They had been hired by a bail bondsman to travel to Tucson and bring back a bail jumper facing drug and assault charges. Both men claim they called the airline to find out what they needed to do to transport their weapons. When they arrived at the airport, they offered to check their handguns in their luggage but were instead told to put them in their carry-on luggage.

They were erroneously issued signed authorization documents, which they showed as they passed through security and as they boarded the plane. Such authorizations are supposed to be issued only to certain law enforcement officers, not to bail enforcement agents, as bounty hunters are called.

During trial, attorney Craig Gillespie said, the pilot told the court that he had even left the cockpit to ask a Southwest worker in the terminal about the authorization. Then he took off with Devore and Hudgins aboard.

One of the airline personnel had misread the name of the bounty hunters' company, H&D, as HUD and told the pilot that the two men worked for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Near the end of the flight, one of the flight attendants realized that the men were bounty hunters after a conversation with Devore. And although the crew apparently determined they were not a threat, they were not law enforcement officers.

So the pilot radioed ahead to tell the tower that there were two armed men on the plane who were not authorized to carry weapons. And he asked that the police meet the flight.

Devore and Hudgins were arrested and spent the weekend in the Madison Street Jail. The next Monday they appeared before a federal judge who granted them a conditional release.

They asked if they could finish the job they had come to do, and the judge said yes, so long as they were back in court the next morning.

Devore and Hudgins rented a car, but their guns and handcuffs had been taken, so they stopped at an auto-parts store to buy heavy-duty plastic ties to use as restraining devices.

They drove to Tucson, where their bail jumper was staying with his mother, kept the house under surveillance all night long, then knocked on the door before daylight. The fugitive's mother answered the door and led them to the bedroom where he was sleeping.

"We had him in cuffs before he was fully awake," Devore said.

Then they hurried back to Phoenix and hired a private investigator to watch the fugitive.



Both men were charged with carrying a concealed weapon on an aircraft, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. And although documents entered as evidence showed that Devore and Hudgins did not misrepresent who they were and that Southwest employees had violated policies in allowing them to take the guns on the plane, it took prosecutors about five months to drop charges.
Author:  thebishopp [ Sat 21 Oct 2006 14:04 ]
Post subject: 
now THAT's vindication.

You know all that mess by southwest could of been avoided if that Pilot hadn't called the authorities before speaking with the Southwest supervisors.

Seems to me it was a pissing match between the pilot and the Southwest officials who gave the guys those authorization forms and when he found out they were "bounty hunters" he was going to "show them".... LOL well he "showed" them alright!

He wound up costing Southwest over 9mill (including attorney fees)!

I wonder if he still has a job.
Author:  Kathy [ Sat 21 Oct 2006 16:33 ]
Post subject: 
What I don't understand is how someone mistaking H&D for HUD would give them any authority to issue the authorizations in the first place. Why would someone fron Housing and Urban Development need to be carrying a weapon onboard an aircraft? I don't think a HUD employee is considered law enforcement.

Apparently the crew eventually realized the mistake and the pilot probably called in PD to either point out the ground crew's mistake, or cover it up by trying to lay the blame on the BEA's.

It sounds to me like these guys did everything right, or at least as they were told was right, and apparently the judge and jury agreed. Thank goodness for their sakes, they had all of their paperwork in order. I like that the judge allowed them to complete their mission. It shows that he/she agreed that it was a bogus case, even if prosecutors didn't want to drop it. It's about time our side won something!

Another interesting point is that AZ law requires an outsider to use a local BEA or BA to effect any apprehension, and from my understanding, take them to the state line or "point of exit" if it is an air flight, before the outside BEA takes control of them. Note that these guys reportedly did their own, then hired a local PI to "watch" the subject while they appeared back in court on their charges. This may set an interesting precedence since the judge allowed them to do their job without apparent in state assistance for the apprehension and transport.
Author:  KARMA [ Sat 21 Oct 2006 16:51 ]
Post subject: 
NICE picture MeMe
Author:  Kathy [ Sat 21 Oct 2006 18:50 ]
Post subject: 
LOL, thanks LuVonda. She is so precious to me, and of course my "unbiased opinion" is that she is absolutely perfect and the most beautiful baby ever, even over my own :lol: .
Author:  Kathy [ Sat 21 Oct 2006 18:53 ]
Post subject: 
Oops, now everyone knows what a "grandma" I am...roflmao". Sorry if I dissapointed you all :lol: . I am the brains, James is the brawn :oops: .
Author:  eirikr1 [ Mon 23 Oct 2006 11:19 ]
Post subject: 
kebcpa wrote:
What I don't understand is how someone mistaking H&D for HUD would give them any authority to issue the authorizations in the first place. Why would someone fron Housing and Urban Development need to be carrying a weapon onboard an aircraft? I don't think a HUD employee is considered law enforcement..


they have their own police force, like a lot of federal agencies that aren't primarily justice agencies but see a need for their own little police dept. But I don't see why a HUD police would need to fly armed. It might have been the tipoff to investigate further. I'm wondering if the whole "H&D looked like HUD" story is a story to cover up that an employee didn't realize they "weren't real cops" when the paperwork clearly stated H&D.
Author:  HGUNNER [ Tue 24 Oct 2006 13:42 ]
Post subject:  southwest airlines
approx 2 months ago I did a apprehension in arizona and flew southwest both ways--started in manchester nh and ended in nh with 1 stop each way--I was asked each time i entered the gate area if i was armed and i told the gate crew no and i checked my handgun with checked baggage--no problem at all the crew and pds at pheonix , cleveland, and atlanta were excellant--on the way to pheonix from my first stop - atlanta the flight attendent(knock out by the way)asked if i would not mind telling some stories to the people in the cabin--i would fly with them anytime
Author:  mark cavendish [ Tue 24 Oct 2006 23:42 ]
Post subject: 
9 million bucks out of S.W. airlines. "Man I can't even get a second bag of peanuts." I have a hard time with S.W. "Last time I flew with them they wanted me to pay for two seats, and that was just for me. The bloody mary's are better on America west Anyway.
HGunner when I flew S.W. I also had to check my weapon. They also insisted that the ammo and the weapon be packed seperately. "Did you run into that?"
Author:  Kathy [ Wed 25 Oct 2006 00:36 ]
Post subject: 
Mark, From what I understand, checking your weapon and ammo in separate bags is pretty much the norm for Federal Law on any airline after 9/11/01.

SW has only recently started flying in and out of CO, so I don't have much recent experience with them. When I lived in TX, I flew them a lot and never had a problem. Then again, that was before my current occupation where I felt the need to carry a weapon, so have no experiences to rely on.

When we are on a trip where we apprehend people in other states, we usually drive, so we haven't had this issue. In the recent situation where we flew, we were originally on a personal trip, so didn't take our weapons or restraints. We told the guy (when we so unexpectedly [to everyone] found him), that he could come willingly with us, or that we would turn him over to local LE for extradition. It was just a fluke that we found him, with a little research, in a state that wasn't exactly friendly to our rights. We told him that he had the choice to fly back with us, or we would call LE and have him transported by them. If he hadn't cooperated, we could have easily contacted LE for the arrest and extradition. He understood our position, and chose to "play nice", without giving us any problems, and we turned him over to local BEA's upon our arrival.

We follow the current laws in every state that we travel to or through. Unless you are independently wealthy, I suggest that you do the same. You have to be willing and able to take any comprehension to court. It is that simple, and that complicated.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/