Its contractual between the bonding company and the person bonding. It says they can basically use whatever means necessary for recovery.
The problem, of course, comes in situations like this.
Dog????!
But the interesting thing is that a cop can't just break into a house to arrest someone. He's gotta have a warrant in most circumstances. So you're left wondering how the authorities can contractually allow this. They are effectively giving the bail bondsman more power than they themselves have.
Its contractual between the bonding company and the person bonding. It says they can basically use whatever means necessary for recovery.Party A: The bonding company.
Party B: the bonded person.
Party C: the innocent homeowner who doesn't know that Party B (his houseguest) has a contract with Party A.
Why is Party C subject to a contract between Party A and Party B?
I think Party C has the right --- even the duty --- to blow the brains out of any Party A representative who comes crashing through his door.
The 1872 decision is stupid and should be revoked.