The key is that it is UTAH public policy which allows the out of state recovery agents. In addition what Chuck pointed out can't be overlooked.
The fact is while this is good news for people who need to go into Utah in pursuit of a jumper, it doesn't really afirm in any way TvT. Nor does it really contradict current U.S. Court of Appeal rulings which say that States, essentially, can make their own laws restricting bondsmen (see below).
I'm not sure if people are familiar that courts have already stated that T vs. T does NOT dictate a constitutional authority of bondsmen or their agents.
To quote a KY Supreme Court Ruling:
"Additionally, the Taylor dictum does not state a constitutional princpal or interept a federal statute so as to premet state law. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S.603, 605, 102 S.Ct. 1309, 1311, 71 L.Ed. 2d 490 (1982)(principles that evolved from federal decisional law and are not based on constitutional principals may be followed or disregarded by the states so long as the state procedure as a whole remains consistent with due process of law).
As well as the U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit:
"the quoted language from Taylor v. Taintor appears to be simply an effort to state the common law powers of bondsman, as found in Blackstone, Chapter 8, and several other sources. We find nothing in Taylor or in Chapter 8 of Blackstone, that would authorize the broad power of a bondsman at common law to "break the law"... Federal constitutional law does not preempt state law or immunize bondsmen from violations of local law."
The fact is that until these rulings are challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court and a ruling afirming that the authority granted a bondsman (or his agent) in TvT does state a constitutional principal (ie; there would be no bondsmen, writing bonds, if a bondsman did not have the common law authorites to recover his fugitive thus effectively infringing upon the constitutional right to bond).
Of course such an argument will have to be based upon an actual U.S. Constitutaionl right to bond.
Note that in 2004 a case went before the Ohio Supreme Court regarding cash only bonds... a little different topic but an example of enforcing a "constitutional right".
Cash-Only Bond Violates Ohio Constitution
2004-1104. Smith v. Leis, 2005-Ohio-5125.
Hamilton App. No. C-040273. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Resnick, Lundberg Stratton and O'Donnell, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
Opinion:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpd ... o-5125.pdf
It is unconstitutional for a trial court to require a cash-only bond for a criminal defendant awaiting trial, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.
Of course I hope people realize that just because we may eventually sometime in the far future actually get a supreme court ruling in favor of TvT, that it does not prevent individual States from simply rebelling and making their own laws in contradiction of the rullings. Forcing people who do not have the money to pursue an appeal up the chain to comply.
This is happening in another issue. Currently there are several states who are working or have passed anti-abortion laws in direct violation of roe vs wade. In fact several of these states have tried to do so on several occasions every so many years despite the fact that their laws keep getting struck down by federal courts. This has not stopped them.
Now regardless of your stance on this issue (that is not the point of this post) the fact is that it illustrates the problem this industry faces as further supports statements that the bail industry is a dying one.
The problem is that we do not have any big organization such as the ACLU or any other large organization to provide the financial clout needed to be constantly vigilant and proactive in both securing and then MAINTAINING any victories.
