Bail Bondsman: Federal Law Restrictions And Your Career

While there is no federal law prohibiting one from becoming a bail bondsman, the practice of bail bonding is illegal in most countries outside of the United States. In the US, bail bond agents are licensed by state agencies and requirements vary by state. Some states, such as Oregon, Illinois, and Kentucky, prohibit the use of private bail agents, while others permit them. In most jurisdictions, bond agents must be licensed to operate within the state, and there may be minimum age and residency requirements as well as background checks and examinations to obtain a license.

The role of a bail bondsman

A bail bondsman, bail bond agent, or bond dealer is a person, agency, or corporation that acts as a surety and pledges money or property as bail for the appearance of a defendant in court. Bail bondsmen are almost exclusively found in the United States, as the practice of bail bonding is illegal in most other countries.

Bail bondsmen charge a non-refundable fee, usually 10-20% of the total bail amount, for their services. If the defendant fails to appear in court, the court will keep the bail money provided by the bail bondsman. The bail bondsman may then employ a bounty hunter to locate and detain the defendant and surrender them to the court. Alternatively, the bail bondsman may attempt to recover their loss from any collateral pledged on the case.

In most jurisdictions, bail bondsmen must be licensed to carry on business within the state and may be subject to background checks and other requirements such as minimum age and residency.

State licensing requirements

In states that permit licensed bail agents, you must typically meet minimum age and residency requirements and pass an examination to obtain a license. For instance, in California and Arizona, applicants must be at least 18 years old and residents of the state. While both states require applicants to pass an exam, they differ in their pre-examination requirements. California mandates a minimum of 12 hours of prelicensing classroom study, while Arizona has no specific education requirements prior to taking the exam.

In addition to the basic licensing requirements, a state's licensing requirements may also include a credit check, letters of recommendation, a passport-size photo, and a copy of either your birth certificate or naturalization certificate. Upon approval of your license, you may need to furnish and maintain a surety bond in favor of the licensing agency, guaranteeing your faithful performance as a bail agent. Some jurisdictions, such as Jefferson County in Texas, require security deposits, which can be in the form of cash, a certificate of deposit, or a cashier's check.

To obtain a bail agent license, you will need to submit an application, typically found on the state's department of insurance website. Along with the application, you will likely need to provide the licensing fee, your scores from the licensing exam, proof of sponsorship from a surety company, and a surety bond in the amount mandated by the state. The license for a bail agent is typically valid for one to three years, and most states require the completion of continuing education hours for license renewal.

Federal Bail Reform Act of 1984

Federal laws, including the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Bail Reform Act of 1984, incorporated into the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, govern the practice of bail bonding. While there are no federal laws prohibiting individuals from becoming bail bondsmen, licensing requirements vary by state.

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 sets forth new bail procedures and outlines specific guidelines that "judicial officers" must follow when considering whether a defendant should be released or detained pending federal criminal proceedings. It repeals the Bail Reform Act of 1966 and retains the execution of a money bond as a condition for pretrial release.

The Act authorises judicial officers to consider the safety of individuals and the community when making pretrial release determinations. It establishes mandatory release conditions, including maintaining employment, avoiding contact with victims or witnesses, complying with curfews, and refraining from possessing firearms or using drugs. Judicial officers are prohibited from imposing financial conditions resulting in pretrial detention.

The Act also outlines the requirements for detention hearings, including situations involving violent crimes, offenses punishable by life imprisonment or death, narcotics offenses, and risks of flight or obstruction of justice. It mandates additional penalties for offenses committed while on pretrial release and grants law enforcement officers the authority to arrest individuals who violate pretrial release conditions.

In summary, the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 provides comprehensive guidelines for judicial officers to determine bail status, release conditions, and detention procedures in federal criminal cases. It ensures the safety of individuals and the community while also protecting defendants' rights during the pretrial process.

Bounty hunters and their limitations

Bounty hunters, also known as bail enforcement agents or fugitive recovery agents, are private agents who work for bail bondsmen. They are tasked with capturing fugitives or criminals who have skipped bail in return for a commission or bounty. This occupation operates outside the legal constraints that govern police officers and other state agents, as the bail agreement between a defendant and a bail bondsman is a civil contract.

Bounty hunting is a practice that dates back to the Middle Ages and is now almost exclusively found in the United States, as it is illegal in most other countries. State laws in the US vary widely regarding the legality of bounty hunting. While some states like Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin have outlawed commercial bail bonds, others like Wyoming have minimal to no regulations.

Limitations of Bounty Hunters

Bounty hunters have certain limitations on their authority, and these vary depending on the state in which they operate. Here are some of the key limitations:

• Licensing and Training: In some states like Texas and California, bounty hunters are required to be licensed and may need to undergo formal training. However, in other states, they may not need any formal qualifications or licensing. For example, in California, bounty hunters previously only needed to be 18 years old, have a clean criminal record, and complete a brief "power of arrest" course. This law is no longer in effect, but anyone can become a bounty hunter as long as they are willing.
• Warrant Requirements: While bounty hunters do not need a warrant to enter private property according to an 1872 Supreme Court ruling, they may need a warrant to enter a fugitive's legal residence, depending on the state.
• Firearms and Weapons: The carrying of firearms and weapons by bounty hunters also depends on the state laws. Some states may require a license to carry a firearm, while others may have no restrictions.
• International Jurisdiction: Bounty hunters have no legal authority to arrest fugitives outside the United States. Attempting to apprehend someone in a foreign country could lead to serious legal problems, including charges of kidnapping.
• Legal Liabilities: Since bounty hunters are not police officers, they do not have the same legal protections as state agents. They are exposed to legal liabilities and can be sued for injuries to non-fugitives or their targets.
• Identification: Some states, like Louisiana, require bounty hunters to wear clothing that identifies them as such.
• Vehicle and Uniform Restrictions: In certain states, such as Minnesota, bounty hunters must adhere to specific restrictions on the colours of their vehicles and uniforms to distinguish themselves from police officers.
• Out-of-State Jurisdiction: Bounty hunters may have limited or no jurisdiction in states other than the one they are licensed in, allowing fugitives to escape rearrest by crossing state lines.

The critique of commercial bail bonding

The practice of bail bonding has been criticised for its inherent problems and its negative impact on the justice system. Here is an exploration of these criticisms and the arguments for abolishing or reforming the commercial bail bonding system.

Unaffordable Bail for Low-Income Individuals

The first and most prominent criticism of bail bonding is the financial strain it places on low-income individuals. The bail amount set by the court is often unaffordable for those with limited financial resources, resulting in their prolonged detention while wealthier individuals can secure their release. Even a non-refundable premium of 10% may be too high for some. This criticism highlights the inequities in the criminal justice system, where an individual's freedom can be determined by their economic status rather than the merits of their case.

Impact of Using Collateral

The use of collateral to secure bail can have significant consequences for the accused and their families. If the accused fails to appear in court, their family or loved ones may lose the total amount of the bond, leading to financial difficulties and even foreclosure if they used their home as collateral. This criticism underscores the financial risks and potential losses associated with the bail bonding system.

Regulation of Bounty Hunters

The use of bounty hunters by bail bondsmen has raised concerns about the level of state regulation in the bail bonding industry. Bounty hunters have been described as "acting as wildly unregulated quasi-police," with the authority to use deadly force to recover fugitives. The 1872 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Taylor v. Taintor, affirmed the bail bonds agent's authority to recover their subject, stating that it stems from their contractual responsibility. However, the lack of consistent training, licensing, and legal protections for bounty hunters has led to questions about their accountability and potential for abuse of power.

Discrimination Against Low-Income Defendants

The bail bonding system has been criticised for discriminating against low-income defendants who cannot afford the non-refundable premium, regardless of their flight risk or public safety concerns. This criticism highlights how the current system can disproportionately disadvantage those of lower socioeconomic status, leading to their prolonged detention or acceptance of unfavourable plea deals.

Exploitative Contract Terms and Violence

Instances of exploitative contract terms, harassment, and violence associated with the commercial bail industry have been well-documented. Defendants may be subjected to excessive fees, unreasonable demands, and even physical harm by bounty hunters. These issues underscore the need for stronger regulations and oversight to protect the rights and safety of those involved.

Privatisation of Criminal Justice Components

The commercial bail industry has been criticised for privatising fundamental components of the criminal justice system. By allowing private commercial bondsmen to determine which defendants are released, the system transfers the decision-making power from the courts to private entities. This criticism highlights the potential conflict between profit-driven businesses and the interests of justice.

Alternatives to Commercial Bail Bonding

In response to these criticisms, some have advocated for the abolition of commercial bail bonding and the implementation of court deposit systems or recognisance bonds. In a court deposit system, the defendant would pay a deposit of a certain percentage of the bail amount, which would be refunded after the trial minus a small administrative fee. Recognisance bonds, on the other hand, would be used for most nonviolent offenses, allowing defendants to be released on their own recognisance without the need for financial collateral.

Impact on Plea Bargains and Mass Incarceration

The commercial bail system has been criticised for its role in facilitating mass incarceration, particularly within marginalised communities. Due to the financial strain of posting bail, defendants who cannot afford it are more likely to accept plea deals, regardless of the merits of the charges. This dynamic disproportionately affects Black and Latinx communities, contributing to the overrepresentation of these groups within the criminal justice system.

Lobbying Power of Surety Companies

The endurance of the commercial bail industry, despite widespread criticism, has been attributed to the lobbying power and market concentration of surety companies. These companies, which dominate the industry, have engaged in intensive lobbying efforts to maintain the status quo and obstruct meaningful regulatory reform. Their influence has resulted in the protection and expansion of the industry, often at the expense of low-income defendants and communities of colour.

Alternatives to Commercial Bail

To address the issues within the commercial bail bonding system, some states have implemented pretrial release programs or alternative release systems. Additionally, the role of surety companies in the industry has been questioned, with proposals to eliminate their involvement or allow local bail bondsmen to charge lower rates. These reforms aim to increase competition, reduce financial barriers, and protect low-income defendants from exploitative practices.

In conclusion, the critique of commercial bail bonding highlights the inherent inequities, financial risks, and potential for abuse within the current system. While some states have taken steps towards reform or abolition, the enduring influence of the commercial bail industry and the surety companies that profit from it continue to pose challenges to achieving a fair and just pretrial release system.

Frequently asked questions