The Easter Bounty Hunter

[RaisinAZ]

What is the name of your state? AZ

On April 15, my best friend was going to show up at my house because it was the day before Easter. When I heard the knock at the door, I assumed it was my girlfriend. I hollered for her to come in but upon remembering that the metal screen door was locked I dashed to the door to unlock it without really looking outside. As I pushed the door open and looked up, a gun was pointing right at my head. I immediately thought that we were about to be robbed. The holder of the gun, wearing street clothes, started screaming at me many directives, one being that he wanted to know who was behind the front door the other being that he wanted to come inside the house. As I looked to my right, I saw the sheriff, dressed in uniform, standing there and realized that the man with the twitchy finger was obviously a bounty hunter. Neither man offered identification to me but I could see ID hanging from the bounty hunter's neck. I told him that there was no one behind the door (the door had a stopper that prevented it from opening all the way) and asked if he had a warrant to enter my home. He did not answer my question. Instead he again asked me who was in my house. I told him that my husband was inside. He screamed to the sheriff to go in and get my husband. I said, "Hold it, I don't let strangers in my house and I'm sorry but I don't know you." (The truth is, I didn't want those guys in my house because I had an embarrasing sink full of dishes!) I then looked at the bounty hunter, who was practically shaking like a leaf and told him, "And you, sir, need to settle down and keep your voice lowered." He ignored my request with more yelling. I told them that I would call my husband to the door. When my husband arrived at the door, I stepped outside thinking that my husband would be able to guard the entryway. As my husband approached to stand in my former holding spot, the bounty hunter grabbed my husband's left arm and forced him outside of the house, yelling at my husband to put his hands up on the house and spread eagle. He frisked my husband. My husband turned around, told the man to calm down and put his gun away. Then my husband told him that he was a correction officer and had identification inside the house to prove it. My husband asked him again to please put his gun away. The bounty hunter would only allow my husband to retrieve his Arizona Department of Corrections ID on the condition that the sheriff be allowed to go inside. I said, "Absolutely not. I still don't know you." The bounty hunter, still nervous, was barking out orders but no one was doing anything. My husband and I were both asking him to please settle [calm] down and lower his voice. The bounty hunter was yelling at my husband threatening him that he was going to "take him in." My husband asked, "On what charges?" The bounty hunter replied, "Aiding and abetting a convicted felon." At that point, the bounty hunter pulled out a photo of a woman and told us that he knew for a fact that she was in our house. I recognized the woman and told him that I had not seen her for over thirteen months, since March of 2005, and I had no idea where she was. He said that he had "reliable information" that provided him with info that she was in our house the previous month, March of 2006. I told him that was BS. My husband realized that we needed to resolve this matter pronto so he relented to letting the sheriff stand inside the house while my husband retrieved his State Corrections ID. Once the ID was shown to the bounty hunter, he calmed down, apologized and then told us that because our door wouldn't open up all the way, he was worried someone was behind the door and he didn't feel like getting shot at on the day before Easter. I suggested he perhaps not work on Saturdays. I further suggested that they consider watching a person's house for a couple of days before they go shoving guns in innocent people's faces. We walked them out to their vehicle. There was a third man watching our back door. The bounty hunter told my husband that their "reliable hot tip" had actually come in as an anonymous tip on Sheriff Joe's Maricopa County website. Since this day, I have been unable to resume my daily routine. I had a steady job at the time but eventually I could not cope with leaving the house so I am no longer employed. Do I have any recourse? What is the name of your state?

 

[CdwJava]

You can talk to an attorney and sue the bounty hunter ... maybe. Unfortunately for you, bounty hunters are granted a great deal of leeway under the law. They can do things (legally) that law enforcement cannot. Hence, one explanation why the deputy just stood there. Personally I think it was a DUMB decision to allow a deputy to accompany a bounty hunter for just this reason.

- Carl

 

[RaisinAZ]

Thank you.

Thank you for reading my rather verbose tale of woe.

You are right about the bounty hunters having a lot of leeway. Now that you mentioned that fact, I remember that there was quite a stir in the Phoenix area a few years back when when some b-hunters busted into the wrong house--oops--and killed the wrong guy.

Maybe I should just find a good therapist.

 

[tranquility]

See an attorney. While the specifics are important, there are many issues here that need to be addressed. A major one is that I agree with Carl, the sheriff was D-U-M, dumb. If the "tip" did come in on the sheriff's website, and the sheriff told the bounty hunter and then accompanied him to your house, *I'd* make the argument the bounty hunter was acting as an agent of the police. I don't know the case law in AZ for serving arrest warrants on an anonymous tip at a place the wanted person never lived, but I'd bet the police would not act the way the hunter did.

 

[acmb05]

See an attorney. While the specifics are important, there are many issues here that need to be addressed. A major one is that I agree with Carl, the sheriff was D-U-M, dumb. If the "tip" did come in on the sheriff's website, and the sheriff told the bounty hunter and then accompanied him to your house, *I'd* make the argument the bounty hunter was acting as an agent of the police. I don't know the case law in AZ for serving arrest warrants on an anonymous tip at a place the wanted person never lived, but I'd bet the police would not act the way the hunter did.

That is because the bounty hunter is not obligated to follow the procedures that an officer of the law would be.

 

[tranquility]

Agents of the police do.

42 U.S.C. 1983 (violation) requires the actions taken are "under color of law." This is usually easy as a governmental actors do the conduct under their governmental duties. Determining whether the bounty hunter did a private action or an action under color of law is the issue.

When the action is committed by a perosn who does not work for the government, the under-color-of-law inquiry focuses on the nature of the connections between the private person and the government. In Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) it was held a private person is "under color" if the person is a "wilful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents". In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., the Supreme Court held a creditor who used a state prejudgment statute had acted under color of law because, in attaching the debtor's property, with help from the court clerk and sheriff, the creditor had further used state power. The assistance from state officials made the creditor a joint participant in state action.

The court has never required (except in Lugar) obvious ties to the state. The police don't get to violate people's rights just because they get a private citizen to do their dirty work.

My goodness, I wrote why I thought an arguement could be made for joint action. Maybe you could talk about that before making silly pronouncements that do nothing more than display ignorance.

 

[acmb05]

Agents of the police do.

42 U.S.C. 1983 (violation) requires the actions taken are "under color of law." This is usually easy as a governmental actors do the conduct under their governmental duties. Determining whether the bounty hunter did a private action or an action under color of law is the issue.

When the action is committed by a perosn who does not work for the government, the under-color-of-law inquiry focuses on the nature of the connections between the private person and the government. In Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) it was held a private person is "under color" if the person is a "wilful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents". In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., the Supreme Court held a creditor who used a state prejudgment statute had acted under color of law because, in attaching the debtor's property, with help from the court clerk and sheriff, the creditor had further used state power. The assistance from state officials made the creditor a joint participant in state action.

The court has never required (except in Lugar) obvious ties to the state. The police don't get to violate people's rights just because they get a private citizen to do their dirty work.

My goodness, I wrote why I thought an arguement could be made for joint action. Maybe you could talk about that before making silly pronouncements that do nothing more than display ignorance.

Well because the police did not get a private citizen to do thier dirty work it would not aply in this case, especially since it is obvious from what the poster wrote that the law man was not there to help do anything.
A bounty hunter usually notifies local law enforcement when they are looking for a subject in thier area. Using that anology they would always be acting under color of law.
I would tend to think that when they notified local law enforcement that the locals just sent someone out to the house to be there if something were to go down. Now if the Local police were to call in a bounty hunter to capture a fugitive that would be another story.

To the poster, you are lucky that Mr. Bounty Hunter did not just bust right on in since he neither needs your permission nor acceptance to do so. For the most part bounty hunters are usually nice people but of course you will have the occasional ass out there. It is presumed he has been looking for this person for some time and since he or his bonding company is probably out quite a few bucks because of her he is a little hyped about catching her.

By someone posting an anonymous tip on a police web site would not make it collusion between the police and the bounty hunter. More than likely the bounty hunter saw it before the police did and called to see if it was a legitimate tip.

 

[acmb05]

See an attorney. While the specifics are important, there are many issues here that need to be addressed. A major one is that I agree with Carl, the sheriff was D-U-M, dumb. If the "tip" did come in on the sheriff's website, and the sheriff told the bounty hunter and then accompanied him to your house, *I'd* make the argument the bounty hunter was acting as an agent of the police. I don't know the case law in AZ for serving arrest warrants on an anonymous tip at a place the wanted person never lived, but I'd bet the police would not act the way the hunter did.

See the problem is though that the Bounty Hunter does not have an arrest warrant. What they have is a pickup order from the bonding company. So serving an arrest warrant at a place where the person never lived is irrelavent since he was not serving a warrant.

 

[CdwJava]

As a note, at least in CA, sometimes bounty hunters will call local law enforcement to stand by when they take someone into custody. It's an uncomfortable situation, but sometimes the locals will be assigned simply to standby and "keep the peace". In the case of my agency if we are so notified of a wanted person we thank the B.H. for his tip and WE will take care of the issue giving the B.H. "credit" for the collar so that he can get his percentage from the bondsman later.

Different states have different rules and the rules are changing.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

See the problem is though that the Bounty Hunter does not have an arrest warrant. What they have is a pickup order from the bonding company. So serving an arrest warrant at a place where the person never lived is irrelavent since he was not serving a warrant.

I don't know how it works where you are, but out here if you skip out on bond a warrant is issued. If the bondsman is trying to revoke the bond for some other reason (cold feet, etc.) then they are on their own. Personally, I wouldn't want to send an officer to said revocation and if we did, we wouldn't be allowing the BH to pull guns on people without cause.

In this case if the deputy was not drawing his weapon it would seem that the BH's fear may not have been quite so reasonable.

- Carl

 

[acmb05]

I don't know how it works where you are, but out here if you skip out on bond a warrant is issued. If the bondsman is trying to revoke the bond for some other reason (cold feet, etc.) then they are on their own. Personally, I wouldn't want to send an officer to said revocation and if we did, we wouldn't be allowing the BH to pull guns on people without cause.

In this case if the deputy was not drawing his weapon it would seem that the BH's fear may not have been quite so reasonable.

- Carl

As I said, some of them can be asses about it. Most are not. However since they tend to jump right in they are usually on the edgy side. They can get away with a lot more than the cops can.

If they skip bond then yes a warrant is issued thru the courts, but that is for law enforcement. The bondsman is not part of that and they in turn usually issue thier own papers revoking the bond. The bounty hunter is not working under the warrant he is working under the bondsmans papers which is nothing more than a pick up order.
When the offense is not a major one then for the most part the police will just wait it out for them to get busted for something else. The bondsman is out his money and has more of an incentive to pick the person up, which is why they have bounty hunters.

 

[CdwJava]

The bounty hunter is not working under the warrant he is working under the bondsmans papers which is nothing more than a pick up order.

However, in my state the BH could have been arrested for ADW or brandishing a firearm unless he could articulate reasonable fear for his life ... given that the matter was essentially civil (contractual arrangement with the bondsman) and the deputy did not appear to be afraid for HIS life, this would tend to show that the brandishing of the firearm was unnecessary.

The presence of the deputy opens the agency up to potential liability in this instance and was still a dumb move by the agency.

When the offense is not a major one then for the most part the police will just wait it out for them to get busted for something else. The bondsman is out his money and has more of an incentive to pick the person up, which is why they have bounty hunters.

I understand why they have bounty hunters. The issue here was the way the BH went about it and the presence of the deputy. The deputy's presence opens the agency to liability. If there was a warrant, and law enforcement was advised, then law enforcement should have handled it. Standing by while the BH pointed guns at people was a dumb decision.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

"Now if the Local police were to call in a bounty hunter to capture a fugitive that would be another story."

Exactly.

The bounty hunter probably did not call the police. There was an anonymous tip on the sheriff's tip website. (According to the OP.) Are such tips public? How did the bounty hunter find out about the tip? My guess is the sheriff looked up who held the bond and called them. Then, the sheriff came out with the bounty hunter. I'd say there was a joint action. If the bounty hunter called out the sheriff to "keep the peace", that would be different. But, that would be a different set of facts from what was reported by the OP wouldn't it?

Carl, say you were put into such a situation. A bounty hunter calls you to keep the peace as he is about to try to capture a person they had an anoymous tip on at a residence were the suspect was not known to live. They walk up to the door and do what the bounty hunter did in the OP's situation. Would you consider yourself to have kept the peace?

In Berber v. Hanlon, 188 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) Joint action was found between the police and media when they jointly planned the execution of a warrant or, participated in pre-raid briefings or, where the police disclose confidential information to the accompanying media.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, say you were put into such a situation. A bounty hunter calls you to keep the peace as he is about to try to capture a person they had an anoymous tip on at a residence were the suspect was not known to live. They walk up to the door and do what the bounty hunter did in the OP's situation. Would you consider yourself to have kept the peace?

Nope. If this was to retrieve a person who had their bond revoked by the bondsman (and not as a result of a court order) I would have spoken to the BH beforehand and advised we would do this low-key, we would not be forcing entry or kicking in doors, and he had better behave himself. The moment he pulled a gun on someone without cause, I'd have taken him into custody and sorted it out later.

I do NOT want some yay-hoo flashing guns around and I do know that there are no real requirements to be a bounty hunter. Some are good, some are psycho. Some, like this one (if the OP's rendition is to be completely believed) needs to switch to decaf.

If this was to serve an arrest warrant, the bondsman would have been left at the curb or the station, and we would have gone up with whatever number of officers might be appropriate to serve the warrant depending on the severity of the charges, the threat level, and the confidence level the wanted person was inside.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

A police officer acting like a professional. Go figure.