Today's award goes to a team of erstwhile bounty hunters in Arizona.
An Arizona bounty hunter was booked after he and his team mistakenly raided the home of the Phoenix police chief while looking for a fugitive, authorities said.
. . .
It turned out to be a mistake of epic proportion when the slim, white, police chief answered the door in his underwear, awoken from his slumber, rather than an expected 310-pound, black, male suspect — wanted out of Oklahoma on drug charges.
A bondsman challenged the baton-wielding chief at the door but the situation quickly deescalated when the mistake was revealed.
. . .
Farley is charged with criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct. Police are investigating where the initial false report originated.
There's more at the link.
Here's how it went down.
From the somewhat peeved reaction of the police chief, I suspect a certain bounty hunter won't be getting out of jail free - or anytime soon. I wonder which disgruntled former 'client' of the local PD placed the phony report that led the bounty hunters to the wrong address? Sort of reverse SWATting, in a way.
Peter
The thing is, that this behavior is presumed perfectly acceptable if the fugitive were actually there. Why are not bounty hunters subject to the same law as the rest of us? If it is criminal trespass to do this to the chief of police, then it should also be criminal trespass for these same people to show up at the door of their bail-jumping target.
ReplyDeleteReal police have a certain amount of personal immunity for arriving at the wrong house in good faith. So I can understand how they are not prosecuted every time they hit the wrong place.
Did the bounty hunters have a warrant? Or other legal authority? i suspect state and local laws about this are tricky.
Well, the chief of police was a wee bit restraint and didn't call his SWAT to take out these guys. But that really was stupid. Come on, Google the address to see if it even remotely matches.
ReplyDelete@ generic views:
ReplyDeleteThey have the power to enter the house of the fugitive under the US Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Taintor. In the 1873 case of Taylor v. Taintor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under traditional common law principles, bail bondsmen can basically do as they please to arrest a suspect. “They may” -- and I quote -- “pursue him into another state; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose.”
They do not have the power to enter the property of anyone else, however.
Come on guys,
ReplyDeleteThese bounty bubbas were set up by somebody they pi$$ed off in the past. Whoever sent them to the CHIEF OF POLICE's home knew exactly what they were doing, and Bubba was just to far down the IQ scale to figure it out.
What's the old saying?
"Stupid is as stupid does."
@divemedic.
ReplyDeleteThanks. There you go them. They commited no crime. No criminal intent. Believed they had lawful authority. They owe the chief an apology and a few dollars for any damage they did. The chief know what they did I'd not a crime so his arrest of them Is malicious prosecution.
-generic
I've never hunted in Arizona so I don't know if it's the law, but it's at least basic common sense to let the police department know before you attempt to make an arrest.
ReplyDeleteThat said not only do bounty hunters but need a warrant, there's NO SUCH THING as a warrant for bounty hunters. The defendant is technically not free, but in the custody of the bondsman, who can return him to the custody of the state at any time for a variety of reasons.
*NOT need a warrant, I mean.
ReplyDelete