BOUNTY HUNTER
Name for a category of persons who are offered a
promised gratuity in return for “hunting” down
and capturing or killing a designated target, usually
a person or animal.
Bounty hunters can be defined broadly as a
category of persons who track down someone or
something for money. A bounty is a subsidy that
is paid to a category of persons who have performed
a public service. Bounty is the proper
term to be applied when the services of several
persons are sought, and each person who fulfills
the offer is entitled to the promised compensation.
By contrast, a reward compensates a single
service to be performed only once, such as in the
capture of a fugitive. Therefore, it will be earned
solely by the person who succeeds in this regard.
In practice, bounty hunters usually track
down criminal defendants who skip bail and fail
to appear for court appointments. Bail skipping
is a constant in the American criminal justice
system. In 1994, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
reported that 25 percent of felony defendants
who had been released on their own recognizance
had failed to appear at their trials. Over
the past decade, bounty hunters have apprehended
about 25,000 fugitives in the United
States each year. It has been estimated that they
return to custody over 99 percent of the criminal
defendants who skip bail.
Courts have granted bounty hunters extensive
powers for the purposes of returning fugitives
to justice. These include the powers to
pursue a fugitive into another state, to arrest him or her at any time, and to break into a fugitive’s
house in order to capture him or her. The
powers of a BOUNTY HUNTER are usually
received vicariously, through powers that
already are invested in a bail bondsman.
Bounty hunters have existed since medieval
times—the notion of bail predates written ENGLISH
LAW. The foundation for bounty-hunter
rights in the United States was laid down in the
1872 case of Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.)
366, 21 L.Ed. 287 (1872). “Where one charged
with crime is released upon bail, he is regarded
as being delivered to custody of his sureties.
Their dominion is a CONTINUANCE of the original
imprisonment,” wrote the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a decision that has never been overruled.
There has been increasing controversy in the
United States over bounty hunters, with concern
voiced over the lack of control that a state has
over their behavior. In response, some states
have taken to curbing the bounty hunter’s activities.
For, example, in 1998, Arizona passed a bill
restricting bounty hunters from entering a residence
without the consent of an occupant, as
well as prohibiting bounty hunters from misrepresenting
themselves as law enforcement agents
or from working as a bounty hunter if convicted
of certain crimes.
FURTHER READINGS
Drimmer, Jonathan. 1996. “When Man Hunts Man: The
Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in the American
Criminal Justice System.” Houston Law Review 33 (fall).
Patrick, Andrew DeForest. 1999. “Running from the Law:
Should Bounty Hunters Be Considered State Actors and
Thus Subject to Constitutional Restraints?” Vanderbilt
Law Review 52 (January).
U.S. House of Representatives. 2000. Bounty Hunter Responsibility
Act of 1999: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives. One Hundred Sixth Congress, 2d session,
on H.R. 2964,March 30.Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O.
Bounty Hunter: Legitimate Law Enforcement or Dangerous Anachronism?
Most citizens do not realize bounty
hunters still exist in modern society
and that these agents have few limitations
placed on them by state laws.
Concerns have been raised about the failure
of many states to regulate the actions
of bounty hunters. In general, bounty
hunters are not subject to civil liability
for the injuries they may cause
in recapturing a person who
has been released on bond and
fled. Critics contend that the
legal privileges granted to
bounty hunters in the nineteenth
century make no sense
today, and that it might be prudent
to outlaw bounty hunters. Defenders
reply that bounty hunters serve an
important role in the criminal justice system
and should not be forced to follow
regulations that will prevent them from
carrying out their responsibilities.
Defenders of bounty hunters note
that the COMMON LAW right of recapture
dates back to the constitutional
beginnings of the United States. They
contend that critics have ignored the
underlying legal relationship between the
bail bonding company and the principal,
the person who is bailed out of jail.When
the bonding company bails a defendant
out of jail, the defendant waives his rights
when he signs the bail bond
contract. Then, if a defendant
fails to appear in court, the bail
bond company may have to
forfeit the bond it posted with
the court. If this system was
not available, many defendants
would not be able to post bond
themselves, and they would have to
remain in jail, which would drive up the
cost for local governments to house
defendants awaiting trial. In addition, the
bail bonding company serves as guarantor
that the defendant will appear in
court. This system also removes from
public law enforcement the responsibility
of tracking down many defendants who
fail to appear in court.
Defenders also point out the significant
difference between free-lance
bounty hunters and agents who work
directly for the bail bonding company.
These agents, commonly known as bail
agents, are involved from just after arrest
to the disposition of the case. They are
familiar with the workings of the local
criminal courts and are trained by the
bail bonding company. In contrast, freelance
bounty hunters cause most of the
problems. Defenders of bounty hunting
believe that the occasional public outcries
over violent recapture of a bail-skipper
are the result of a few irresponsible freelancers.
Finally, defenders rely on the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Taintor,
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366, 21 L. Ed. 287
(1872). The Taylor ruling, which remains
good law, gives bounty hunters authority
to seize and imprison a principal at any time. The decision also allows bounty
hunters to pursue a person to another
state and arrest the pursued person without
legal process. Taylor concludes that
the bail bonding company has the “principal
on a string,” and “may pull the
string” whenever it pleases. Defenders
conclude, therefore, that the Court has
given bounty hunters authority under
the U.S. Constitution to practice their
trade. This authority has never been
revoked.
Finally, defenders point out that
defendants who skip bail do not want to
be found and do not want to surrender, if
discovered. Bounty hunters do not seek
to inflict injuries on principals or damage
property, but in many situations surprise
entry into a dwelling is required to effect
the arrest. Physical resistance by the principal
leads to most of the violence associated
with bounty hunters.
Critics of bounty hunters contend
that the time has long passed for bounty
hunters. The Taylor decision was rendered
a few years after the Civil War, at a
time when the United States was relatively
unpopulated and the West was just
beginning to be settled. Moreover, police
departments in urban areas were inadequate,
ill-equipped, and ill-trained.
Cooperation between jurisdictions was
minimal, and there was no organization
similar to the FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (FBI) with the power
to cross state borders in pursuit of
escaped felons. In addition communication
between points separated by great
distances was poor. At that time, therefore,
it made sense to allow bounty
hunters to track down persons who
jumped bail. The critics argue that these
considerations no longer make sense,
when modern law enforcement has the
benefit of the FBI, electronic communication,
and cooperation between jurisdictions.
Critics believe that allowing bounty
hunters to use questionable, and often
violent, methods to recapture principals
does not promote respect for the administration
of justice. In addition, since the
1960s the Supreme Court has recognized
that criminal defendants are entitled to
numerous constitutional rights. The “due
process revolution” runs counter to the
methods of bounty hunters, who can
commit acts that law enforcement officers
are prohibited from committing.
Critics contend that it is unwise to allow
private law enforcement to run
roughshod over the rights of persons,
merely because they have entered into a
contractual relationship.
While some critics believe bounty
hunters should be banned, others believe
that states should regulate bail agents.
Some states, such as Florida, require
bounty hunters to be licensed and to be
employed by only one bail bonding company
that will supervise and be responsible
for the agents. Florida imposes age
and residence requirements on licensed
bounty hunters, who must also demonstrate
they are of high moral character.
Some states also require bounty hunters
to complete a certification course in
criminal justice within a few years of
obtaining their license. Some jurisdictions
mandate that bounty hunters take
continuing education courses in their
field every year. Many of these reforms
have been proposed by the National
Institute of Bail Enforcement, which
seeks to professionalize its membership
and enhance its public reputation.
Critics also believe it essential that
bounty hunters be held liable for injuries
to persons and property. State laws must,
they argue, be amended to impose civil
liability. Such legislation would deter
bounty hunters from taking dangerous
actions that may injure innocent people.
