And Again .... HOLY MOLY

So, here is a lawyers take on bounty hunters in general and CA in particular:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/bounty ... -ja-92081/

Bounty hunters are nothing more than private persons (i.e., not peace officers), especially when it comes to breaking into someone’s home to make an arrest. California’s bounty hunter statutory scheme, which superseded Taylor v. Taintor, makes clear a bounty hunter “shall not forcibly enter a premises except as provided for in [Penal Code] Section 844.” See, PC 1299.09. In turn, Section 844 states, “To make an arrest, a private person . . . may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be.” Some bounty hunters think that as long as they, subjectively (i.e., their own personal thoughts and reasoning), think a defendant is inside a home, they’re free to kick down the door. In one particular lawsuit we’re handling, bounty hunters admitted their only reason for believing a defendant was inside were statements made to them by others (i.e., hearsay) who had supposedly seen the defendant coming and going in the past. However, the law is clear that even police officers, much less bounty hunters, cannot rely on hearsay to enter a home. This is true even for a peace officer who was told by another peace officer that the defendant was seen entering the home: “The statements of the fellow officer, being hearsay on hearsay, could not by themselves have constituted reasonable grounds.” People v. Pease (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 442. Some bounty hunters think they’re free to enter a defendant’s own home simply because it’s the defendant’s own home, even if they don’t know if the defendant is home at the time of entry. This is also illegal–even for police officers: “The officers did not have an objectively reasonable belief as required by Cal. Penal Code §844 that defendant was home at the time of the officers’ visit. The officers’ entry into the home was an illegal breaking.” People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472. The bottom line is that a bounty hunter doesn’t get to break into a house just because she has reason to think the fugitive might be there. The bounty hunter’s own subjective belief is not the standard. “The term ’reasonable grounds’ as used in section 844 is the substantial equivalent of the terms ’reasonable cause’ and ’probable cause.’ . . . Reasonable grounds to believe the person named in the warrant was in the house means such a state of fact as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and to conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion the subject of the warrant was in the house.” People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472. It’s an understatement to say illegally entering someone else’s home is dangerous. Even if you have the right to defend your home, consider instead calling 911 and then turning on your video camera if someone playing bounty hunter illegally demands entry. It may just be a massive legal misunderstanding on the bounty hunter’s part, perhaps because he or she was taught jailhouse law that clings to Taylor v. Taintor’s 140-year-old superseded dicta.

The above lawyer has some good points and back them up with CA case law. In my opinion the Lipstick girls are in for a very tough time in court.

Tony,
That is why we have judges, because two opposing attorneys are stating their particular position as the only right one. Secondly, while his position would adhere to constraints on law enforcement, we are not protected under the color of law, and therefore not bound to it. Taylor v.Taintor may vet well be considered old precedence, the opinion still stands except where state law has been applied to the contrary.

On another note, were we, as a profession, to adopt a low impact philosophy, this profession would not be the subject of newspaper articles, televised exposes, or YouTube heroes. This business belongs in the shadows, operated covertly, without attracting attention. When we can stay off of the radar, we will no longer be the focus of a politicians rise to power.

Scott

_________________
R.E. "Scott" MacLean III

"Leaders are like Eagles, you never see them in a flock, but one at a time"

Chesapeake Group Investigations, Inc.
Chesapeake Bail Bonds
877-574-0500
301-392-1100 (fax)
301-392-1900 (Office)

In California, several penal codes sections do in fact supersede TvT. Plus there are a few court case law rulings to back up the state law.

I am sure that the Lipstick girls will also be as Rex Venator likes to say, a "test case" for some of CA code sections.

They will be, or maybe already are, in his infamous "green book" of what-not-to-do examples.

_________________
Tom Duprey
Founding member, NABBI (Nat'l Assoc. of Bail Bond Inv.)
Ca. Bail Agent Lic#1845795
Owner/Operator, Thomas Duprey Bail Bonds
Owner/Operator, Orange County Bounty
(714) 727-4689

I recently sat in an airport on a layover awaiting my next connection and met a retired federal agent. small talk led to professions and his response to mine was unprofessional, to include verbalized disgust. I engaged him, and asked from what personal experience or reference he had formed his opinion of an entire industry? Dog the Bounty Hunter. No real life interaction, ever. I have found this often to be the case, both in person and on message boards. I confront them to perform a quick root cause analysis to determine validity. While there are some instances that are both valid and shameful on our profession, one can name an exponentially greater number occuring among sworn officers. Why? The fallen nature of man is exposed in the pure statistics and is a common ratio of the number of recovery people in relation to the number of officers. A certain number of people will make poor decisions based on greed, ego etc.

There is no difference.

Scott

_________________
R.E. "Scott" MacLean III

"Leaders are like Eagles, you never see them in a flock, but one at a time"

Chesapeake Group Investigations, Inc.
Chesapeake Bail Bonds
877-574-0500
301-392-1100 (fax)
301-392-1900 (Office)

Docmike is absolutely correct - this bunch is about as unprofessional as it gets and should be appearing on "Lockup" right after they get charged for aggravated kidnapping. Therefore, it is almost a certainty that they will get the next reality/bailbond/pawnshop/wives of somewhere reality show. How about this for a title?

"DOGS, THE BOUNTY HUNTERS"

Seems appropriate to me.....

_________________

It is Austintacious in Austin,Texas !

VERY well said, Scott. That would make life easier for all of us!

_________________

It is Austintacious in Austin,Texas !

Who lives over that way. Someone needs to go have a chat with these bytches.

I live right in the heart of their little circus and I wouldn't waste the oxygen on them.

_________________
Tom Duprey
Founding member, NABBI (Nat'l Assoc. of Bail Bond Inv.)
Ca. Bail Agent Lic#1845795
Owner/Operator, Thomas Duprey Bail Bonds
Owner/Operator, Orange County Bounty
(714) 727-4689

Hawthrone woman to sue lipstick bounty hunters. Lisa and Theresa Golt busted into the wrong home with bounty hunter Chris Alvarez . There were looking fugitive Rick Lewis on April 20, 2013. CBS Sep. 26 , 2013 .