Bounty Hunters and Private Investigators - Are They One and the Same?

There was a time in our not so distant past that Bounty Hunters were apart of America's history that began during times of the lawless old west. Since then much has changed in the United States, especially since 9/11 happened. The following is the actual decision in a United States Supreme Court case concerning the rules and law governing Bounty Hunters:

Decision of the United States Supreme Court (Taylor vs. Taintor, 16 wall, 366) -

"Such is now the settled rule: When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties (bail bondsman). Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that can not be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by AGENT (the Bounty Hunter). They may pursue him into another state; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the Sheriff of an escaping prisoner."

What the above case states basically is that once a subject is bailed out of jail he is now the property of the bail bonding company until he either appears in court on his court date, or at anytime prior to that date that the bondsman can decide not to continue on the bond and return the subject back to jail at his choosing. The Bondsman can hire an agent for that purpose. That agent being a hunter.

In 1995 many U.S. states began to believe that they should be able to regulate hunters over this Supreme Court Ruling and set their on laws. According to the United States Constitution however, states may add to the federal laws, but they can not take away from it as many states are currently doing. The reason for this is that no one has come forward to challenge the new laws being set by these states as unconstitutional. Since 9/11, more and more states have jumped on the band wagon. It is due, in part, to politics, outcries by those who are bond jumpers themselves, and by sensationalized stories in the press about inexperienced hunters getting into shootouts at the wrong house.

Fact is, the federal law was created to assist law enforcement, not harm it. Since the days of the old west there have always been far too few police, far too many fugitives to apprehend, and no way, but through this ruling to address the matter in a legal decision to accommodate all parties involved. Actually, bounty hunting was a way for states to cut through the entire extradition process (red tape) of criminals between one state that the fugitive ran (apprehended) to and the original state that issued the warrant. Now, if a subject flees his jurisdiction and is apprehended, that state of the arrest notifies the state having the warrant. The state and court having issued the warrant has 10 working days from date of arrest to send their officers to that state and legal extradition begins, or that fugitive that's in custody is immediately released from said custody. Reality is that there just isn't enough law enforcement personnel to send to that other state for that extradition to take place within the 10 days mandated. So the fugitive is once again on the street still wanted by that original state for his crimes. And, he now knows that he won't face being rearrested as long as he remains in that state and doesn't return to the original state of the warrant for his arrest. And, he also knows that the bondsman no longer wants him either because he got off the bond once the arrest was made. What a world we now live in, huh?

In the past, when a bondsman hired a hunter to go after someone who had fled to another state. The hunter went to that state, located the bad guy, arrested him, and simply returned him to that original state of the warrant without costs of extradition, or the red tape involved. There is no 10 day restriction that applies to the hunter. Now, it costs tax dollars to send officers to that other state for the process, the cost to return with the fugitive back home is absurd. The bondsman use to pay all those costs that are now the states (courts, law enforcement agency).

Today, hunters are still used to catch bad guys, but once they arrest, or use local law enforcement help to arrest, that's all that they are required to do. Once the subject is placed in that county jail his client (the bondsman) is now off the liability on the bond figure set by the court issuing the warrant. This includes all costs not incurred by the hunter to effect that arrest. The hunter still gets paid, but doesn't have to worry over traveling back to the original state with the fugitive in hand any more. That sounds great for the hunter, but in actuality it's not great at all because he now can't charge his client, the bondsman, for that part of his service.

Since 1999, in Texas it became law that all hunters must either become a private investigator with a licensed private investigations agency, or become their own agency to work in Texas. The reasoning being that they wanted to cut out the beginner hunter who had little, or no training to do the job with a more professional taking cases. That, in and of itself, is a good a idea. I personally have no problem with that at all. It should be regulated to prevent someone doing something stupid and causing all of the rest of us a big black eye over it. As with Texas, the other states have similar laws in their attempts to regulate the hunter. My suggestion is this. Why not allow the federal government to regulate the hunter rather than each individual state since there is a Supreme Court Ruling on it? That would be an easy task. All one would have to do is submit an application to be a nationally registered hunter/private investigator to the F.B.I. who would set the requirements for licensing as a registered hunter. Those having no prior experience would apprentice at a legal private investigations agency that is already licensed by the federal agency involved that employ hunters for their clients, the bondsman. After a time, that agency submits the apprentice's application to become a licensed nationally registered hunter with proof of training requirements having been met. What this would do is take individual states out of the dollars cost figures, extradition red tape, and return those costs to the bondsman's responsibilities as it should be.

For those who have ideas about becoming a hunter, I suggest that you seek a private investigations agency in your state, inquire if they do have a fugitive recovery unit, and whether or not they are willing to hire you to become an investigator for them assigned to that unit. Unless you are a retired peace officer, a private investigator with tons of prior experience and training in it, you will face a hard road in getting into it now. And...as long as your state regulates it you can count on it becoming even harder to do so over time. In today's world we are no longer referred to as Bounty Hunters in the trade, but rather we are called Private Investigators who work Fugitive Recoveries. We can no longer refer to ourselves as Agents acting for the Bondsman. So, are Bounty Hunters also Private Investigators? I'll let you answer that for yourself.