Posted on 01/29/2006 4:54:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
Actually it is. As long as the bounty hunter is breaking into the CORRECT house.
Ih a bounty hunter has information that a fugitive is hiding out at a certain address, he has the right to go there, kick the door in, enter the place, cuff and drag the fugitive away...all without a warrant.
However, if the bounty hunter makes the mistake of breaking into the wrong house, then he's up S$%#s creek without a paddle.
This guy could give donut eaters a bad name...
Everything but the police badge is completely legal . Now if the "badge" indicated anything other than "bail enforcement" then he's impersonating a LEO and needs a wakeup call in a jail cell.
The bail enforcement officer has the right to go and get his skip anywhere, anytime including under your bed if you know he's there or not.
Without a warrant? I'm betting George W. Bush is behind this somehow.
Depends on the situation.
In NYC, you'll get sued, and if they believe you acted recklessly (i.e. no warrant, no reason, no just cause, nada), you'll lose your badge and the city may refuse to give you legal immunity to protect you from prosecution.
In other cases, the cops are simply told "bad boy" and allowed to walk.
It all depends on why they broke into the wrong place.
If it was because someone misread a warrant and got the wrong address, then that cop could face prosecution and will almost certainly lose his badge.
And it's an entirely different standard for law enforcement, which is my point in posting this.
Why is that, do you think?
"Sued" or "bad boy" is a lot different from being arrested.
Well legit or not my grandmother would have beat him senseless with her cane or died trying.
The Supreme Court ruling of 1872 created a bond between a bailbondsmen and his client that is only equaled in our society by a 'parent/minor child' bond.
If your minor child is in someone elses home, you cannot, by any law, be denied an opportunity to retrieve your minor child.
That's expected and encouraged! :-)
The US Supreme Court says you don't need a warrant and somehow I don't think GW was around when they wrote the law in 1872. :-)
That isn't half as bad as the house movers that took the wrong house and you came home to an empty lot!
At least this way only the front door is missing.
Got it. Thanks!
If you are prosecuted, the first step would be an arrest.
Its not totally rare for a officer to get arrested for either violating civil rights or, if they acted recklessely, going into the wrong house if they went in, under illegal circumstances.
The Bronx in New York has absolutly no problem prosecuting cops, even when it is wrong and stupid to do so, simply because the DA there hates cops.
It does depend on the situation. I remember last year when the cops here in NYC broke into the wrong place and a woman died of a hear attack.
The only reason the cops didn't get blamed was because the judge screwed up the warrant and gave them one for the wrong address.
The fact something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. Waiting outside for a skip is the most boring thing you ever imagined. But most times it beats getting schlockered by an unknown.
I would like to see everyone held to the same standard.
I read about a case like this several years ago in Boston. The cops kicked down the door of an innocent Pastor and he had a heart attack and died on the spot. About all that was done about this debauchery of 'law enforcement' was the cops said: "oops, sorry".
That's being responsible and thinking about your safety and the other people in the house. Boring isn't always a bad thing:').
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.