Part of the image problem that bail agents face stems from the fact that the general public doesn’t understand the differing roles of the bail agent and the “bounty hunter” or fugitive recovery agent. In their minds, the roles are one and the same. Many people have never required the services of a bail agent nor encountered a bounty hunter so the confusion is understandable.

In Colorado, a bail agent “means any person who furnishers bail for compensation in any court or courts in this state and who is appointed by an insurer by ‘Power of Attorney’ to execute or countersign bail bonds…” They are also called “Insurance Producers” in that they bind policies of insurance for risk in this state. Insurance producers are licensed by the state and make their living selling insurance policies.

A bounty hunter is a person employed by the bail agent to take a person into custody who has failed to abide by the conditions of the bond.

As a bail agent, I am authorized to recover my own “clients” who fail to appear in court. However, I choose to employ recovery agents for the task and devote my time to bail agent activities. The recovery agents I employ must meet standards of professionalism that I learned as a law enforcement officer. The task must be completed quickly, efficiently and in a professional manner. The person will be returned to jail in a business-like manner with as much dignity as the situation permits.

My duties involve answering the phone and responding to questions from family members who are trying to help someone who has gotten into trouble. I meet with the family, complete bond applications, contracts and post bonds at the jails in order to secure the release of the family member in custody.

When not responding to phone calls, I’m tracking appearances in court and the progress of cases. I deal with attorneys and the courts regarding court appearances and the disposition of cases. Many times, I have been able to stop problems from happening by avoiding communication errors and confusion over court appearance dates. Much of my time is spent in the role of counselor in helping people through the system and in dealing with personal issues.

In my view, the role of bail agent is that of a trusted advisor, a friend who can help good people who want to help those in trouble. Image is important because the family of the defendant has a choice as to which bail agent they use to purchase the bond. The bail agent is in a sales and service capacity and must provide good customer service at a competitive price in order to survive.

The bounty hunter comes into play when things go wrong. Image isn’t as important to them because the defendant does not choose which bounty hunter is going to take them back to jail. The only person that they have to persuade is the bail agent who hires them.

A bail agent helps people get people out of jail and ensures that the victim and defendant each get their day in court. The bounty hunter just puts them back in jail when things go wrong.

I’ve been writing about how we need to work to clean up our industry. Here is a story from The Orange County Register that gives us a good place to start.

Bail bondsman charged in business referral scheme

SANTA ANA – A bail bond agent was arrested Thursday and accused of soliciting attorney referrals and inmate business in an illegal bail bond referral scheme.

Ronald Lee Brockway, 50, of Seal Beach, is charged with two felony counts of violating bail license regulations and faces a maximum sentence of three years and eight months in state prison.

He is being held on $50,000 bail pending his arraignment.

California law prohibits bail bond employees from soliciting bail business from any inmate or incarcerated person, according to a news release from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. The law also prohibits bail bond employees from recommending any attorney to any bail bond client, even if no money changes hands.

Brockway is accused of sending numerous e-mails to attorneys soliciting them to participate in an illegal bail bond scheme with his company, Respect Bail Bond, according to the news release.

n his messages, Brockway is accused of suggesting that the attorneys refer bail bond business to him, while offering to refer clients to the attorneys in order to “increase both of our earnings substantially,” prosecutors said.

Brockway is also accused of unlawfully soliciting business from inmates by mass mailing flyers to the Orange County jail containing the name and contact information for Respect Bail Bond. The flyers read, “Get out of jail today by calling now!”

In October 2005, Brockway testified in an Orange County Grand Jury hearing that he had received cash payments from attorney Joseph Cavallo in exchange for referring arrestees to Cavallo’s law practice.

Brockway was not prosecuted in that case because his testimony was needed in the prosecution of other defendants, prosecutors said.

Cavallo was indicted based partly on Brockway’s testimony. Cavallo pleaded guilty on Oct. 12, 2007, to conspiracy to engage in attorney capping, or paying for clients, and an illegal attorney referral scheme. He was sentenced to six months in jail on Dec. 14, 2007.

The District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation began investigating the current case after a private attorney contacted the OCDA to report receiving the e-mail from Brockway regarding the illegal referral scheme.

Apparently, my previous blog posting regarding the poor image of the bail industry has touched a nerve. I received a phone call this morning from an irate woman claiming to be the wife of someone in the industry. She accused me of defaming her husband’s character and threatened a lawsuit unless I removed my post.

The call reminded me of the 1972 Carly Simon tune, “You’re so Vain”. The hook in the lyrics goes ” You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.” If anyone thinks that my post was about them, they should probably spend some time in self-examination and work on cleaning up their act. What matters is that we all recognize that the industry has an image problem and all licensed bail agents need to do their part to clean it up.

There are forces at work that are having a negative influence on the bail industry. Pretrial services would like to see bail go away because we are seen as the bad guys. We all need to work together to raise the standards of the industry. A rising tide lifts all of the boats.

My message to those who think that the previous post was about them is we’ve upped our standards…up yours.

The bail bond premium, that is the fee paid to the bail bond agent, is one of the most misunderstood parts of the bail bond contract. Many people are of the opinion that the fee that they pay is refunded when the defendant appears in court. This is not correct and I’ll explain.

When a person is arrested and a bond amount is set, the family of the defendant has several options. They may post the entire amount of the bail in cash or they my enlist the services of a bail bond agent. If they elect to post the bond in cash, they must deposit the case with the court and that amount will be refunded when the bond is released. If the family does not have the cash, they may enlist the services of a bail bond agent. They will pay a percentage of the bond as a premium for the service of not having to post the entire amount in cash. That premium is earned by the insurance company backing the bond and is not refundable. Think of it as buying car insurance. You pay a premium, but you don’t get any money back if you don’t have an accident.

Another misconception is in the premium rate charged for the bond. In Colorado, the maximum rate that may be charged is set by the State Legislature and is capped at 15%. Most bonds under $5000 are written at 15% while bonds above $5000 are usually 10%. However, the circumstances of each bond dictate where in that range the agent will charge. Risk factors such as residence, employment history, prior failures to appear and the collateral offered all contribute to the decision. Beware of agents that quote rates that vary significantly, either higher or lower from the norm.

Good service is seldom cheap and cheap service is seldom good. There are inherent risks in writing a bail bond and staying on the bond throughout the court process. Good agents provide good service throughout the court process and expect to be compensated accordingly.

A news story out of Orlando, Florida caught my attention this week. It involved the Sex Crimes unit of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, where I used to work and a bail bond agent, my current position.

An Orlando bail bond agent was arrested for sexual battery upon a female he had bonded out. He called the woman to demand more collateral for her bond. She and her husband appeared at the bondsman’s office and the husband left to get more cash and the title to their vehicle. While the husband was gone, he threatened to revoke her bond unless she had sex with him. Not wanting to go back to jail, she complied.

When her husband returned, they completed the paperwork for the bond and left. She told her husband of the threatened revocation and sex. She then reported the incident to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies believe that there will be more victims coming forward as a result of the reporting of this incident.

I’ve written before about some of the unethical behavior of some bail agents and this is a clear example of abuse of power. Bail Agents are given tremendous authority over those they have out on bail and one must be very careful in selecting a bail agent. The industry has it’s share of bottom-feeders who offer low initial rates and later try and squeeze more money or other favors from those on bail.

Bail is a service business. Good service is seldom cheap…cheap service is seldom good.

AIA Surety, the nation’s leading bail bond surety company, recently released the results of a survey of it’s agents. One question stood out for me. It said “What is the biggest challenge facing bail agents today?” Fifty-five percent of those responding said that unethical competitors presented the biggest challenge.

Interestingly, several recent news stories support this belief. Earlier this month, a Louisiana Bail Agent was arrested and charged with insurance fraud and felony theft. He was accepting premium payments on bonds and not submitting documentation in support of the bonds. He kept the money for himself and there was no record of the bonds being written.

In California, bail agents are reported to have paid kick-backs to jail inmates for referring other inmates to their bail agencies. Inmates in the booking area of the Orange County Jail were reported to be dominating the phone, offering to arrange bail with a specific agency in order to receive a kick-back and not letting anyone else use the phone. Referral fees of this nature are clearly illegal and authorities are conducting an investigation. However, finding the necessary evidence has be difficult.

In Texas, a bail agency has declared bankruptcy and is refusing to refund money that is due it’s clients. The clients completed their court appearances and are seeking refunds that are due them. However, the bail agency has filed for Chapter 11 reorganization and nothing is being repaid. The owner says that they will have to wait for a court order before refunding any money. In the meantime, the bail agent is reported to be doing business under another company name.

These three examples occurred this month. Clearly, unethical competitors are a problem and the person seeking to bail someone out of jail needs to exercise a “buyer beware” mentality. I would offer the following tips when selecting a bail agent.

Evaluate how you are treated on the phone. Is the agent pleasant? Easy to talk to? Does he seek to understand your situation and answer all of you questions? If you are not treated well before you pay him your money, imagine how you will be treated after he has it.

Bail Bond transactions require documentation. Everything must be put in writing and you should receive copies of all documents. You should expect to see an application, indemnity agreement, disclosure statement, collateral receipt and premium receipt. Failure to provide copies of these documents should be a red flag that something is wrong.

You get what you pay for. The better bail agents provide a higher level of professional service and expect to be compensated accordingly, within the limits of the law. They are in business for the long run and understand the costs involved in running a successful operation. Beware of the bargain basement price as you may be dealing with someone who is cutting corners that you cannot see. It may cost you more in the long run.

I grew up on the east coast, not far from New York City. It was common knowledge that there were men on the street who loaned money at exorbitant interest rates to desperate individuals willing to pay them. These men were called “loan sharks” or “Shylocks”. The loans were illegal and the men involved were frequently associated with organized crime.

Loan Shark clearly indicated a predator but, I didn’t grasp the meaning of “Shylock” until I studied The Merchant of Venice in high school. “Shylock” now made sense to me. In addition, I took a class in business law and learned all about usury. States had enacted laws to protect it citizens from paying exorbitant interest rates on loans.

My question now is “What happened to the Usury Laws?” An unintended consequence of the recent federal law, the Credit Card Act of 2009, is that credit card companies are raising their rates to levels that exceed the usury limits of most states.

Having received a notice that my credit card was going to charge me 29.99% interest on outstanding balances and a 25.99% on new purchases, I eliminated the card and decided to research what was going on. Isn’t this Usury?

No, it isn’t usury. President Obama’s Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 may improve consumer disclosures and end some questionable practices of the credit card companies. But it does not cap interest rates.

I decided to do some research and learned the following. A 1978 Supreme Court decision permitted national banks to charge the highest interest rate permitted in it’s home state to all of it’s customers across the country. This led the banks to establish themselves in states with very liberal usury laws. Hence, the move to Delaware and South Dakota. In 1980, state-chartered banks were given the same power in charging interest rates. Thus, banks (ie credit cards) are exempt from usury laws. That consumer protection has vanished.

It wasn’t too long ago that it was common for credit card companies to woo consumers with balance transfer offers. “Transfer your high interest balances to our card and pay a lower rate until you pay it off” was everywhere. No longer, folks. Now you’re going to pay 29.99%.

Say goodbye to the usury laws and hello to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Stupid Criminal Season, that is.

Here is another stupid criminal story out of Boston as reported by the Associated Press and Denver Post

Police: Mass. suspect mutilated fingers to hide ID

BOSTON—Police say a Boston man wanted for drug trafficking tried to conceal his identity by cutting the tips of his fingers to hide the prints. State Police spokesman David Procopio said Monday that Francis Viliar admitted to police that he paid someone $400 to slice off the fleshy pads at the ends of his fingers.

The 36-year-old was arrested Friday after state police pulled him over for speeding in Brockton. He was charged with giving a false name and carrying a dangerous weapon.

During booking, officers discovered that his fingertips were covered in scar tissue. FBI specialists were still able to identify Viliar, who had 13 warrants, using ridges from the prints.

Viliar’s attorney, Lawrence Perlmutter, declined to comment late Monday.

I’ve previously written about my belief that marijuana use contributes to stupidity. Here is a story out of Wichita, KS that supports my contention. The text of the article in the Wichita Eagle is copied below.

Couple arrested after reporting theft of marijuana

BY STAN FINGER

The Wichita Eagle

WICHITA — A man and woman notified police that robbers had stolen something from them at their Planeview apartment Monday night, and ended up being arrested themselves.

What had been stolen? Marijuana.

The 32-year-old man and 29-year-old woman said five armed men came to their place in the 3800 block of East Ross Parkway at about 9 p.m. and took marijuana. One of the suspects accidentally fired his gun, spooking the rest of the suspects, police said.

They ran from the apartment and fled in a white Cadillac, dropping marijuana as they ran.

More marijuana was found inside the apartment, police said, so the man and woman were booked on suspicion of various drug charges, including selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school.

Domestic Violence is a wide-spread problem that endangers family members as well as the law enforcement officers responding to calls for help. Men initiate aggression about as often as do women and, in about half of the reported cases, there is no clear-cut initiator. Women are more likely to be harmed, however.

Prior to the mid 1980′s, law enforcement could only make an arrest in a misdemeanor case if it occurred in their presence.If they responded to a domestic violence case, their approach would have been to mediate the dispute or separate the parties for a cooling-off period. The police were able to exercise judgment and discretion in how to handle the incident.

If the victim wished to prosecute, the police would file a report for follow-up investigation. The Victim would have to provide a statement and express their desire to prosecute. The police would file the case, obtain a warrant and arrest the initiator. Frequently, time passed and the victim no longer wanted to do anything…until the next time it happened. Police became frustrated in having to repeatedly deal with people who couldn’t get along and wouldn’t do anything to change their circumstances.

During the mid 1980′s, advocacy groups began to apply pressure for arrests in domestic violence cases stating that the police were being too lenient and that arrests should be made. The Federal Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994 which led to states initiating legislation requiring an arrest in domestic violence cases where probable cause existed.

We have gone from requiring warrants to make misdemeanor arrests, to permitting warrantless misdemeanor arrests  and finally to requiring warrantless misdemeanor arrests in domestic violence cases.

Attorney Philip Howard, in his book The Death of Common Sense: How Laws are Suffocating America, theorizes that we have moved away from the common law approach of applying general legal principles to specific cases and using common sense solutions toward a rationalistic legal philosophy that seeks to write laws of such perfect clarity and detail that no exercise of individual judgment is required in their enforcement. However, the result is that we have laws that go too far and do too little. The excessive rigidity of law makes it unable to adapt to individual cases and it becomes ineffective or counter-productive.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the need for adaptation to circumstances that they couldn’t anticipate at the time the wrote it. It was looked at as a model document for its elasticity and adaptability over time. The Declaration of Independence was written using about 1300 words. The U.S. Constitution about 4400. The Colorado Domestic Violence Statute uses about 6600. Our country was founded using fewer words than are used by one state to enforce one law.

We now have a law that requires the police to make an arrest if probable cause exists. They are not permitted to use their individual judgment regarding the circumstances and the appropriateness of the arrest beyond the determination of probable cause. The decision to arrest is made by the state legislature and not by the police on the scene. Who is in a better position to assess the circumstances? The law is such that the police can get into trouble if they don’t make an arrest. The decision is easy; ” If I’m going to make a mistake, I will err on the side of making an arrest and staying out of trouble.”

Along with the arrest comes a mandatory protection order and a lengthy criminal process. The protection order will mean that the parties will have to separate and have no contact with each other until such time as the system says they can begin to relate to each other again. Thy may not see each other, talk in person or on the phone, no text messages, letters or email…nothing until the system says it’s ok.

This process can be very disruptive and counter-productive. Court calendars are very full and an inappropriate level of no contact may remain in effect due to court scheduling.

Recently, a man contacted me regarding a pending domestic violence charge that he was facing. He expected to be arrested and wanted to arrange to turn himself in and post bond. He explained the circumstances which hardly seemed to justify a criminal charge. He did turn himself in and was released on a PR bond. There was also a protection order in place prohibiting contact with his spouse.

I’ve learned that this man has committed suicide. No doubt he had some issues due to the loss of his job and the need to live apart from his spouse. He had few friends and was prohibited from contacting the most significant person in his life. In this case, I believe that the law was counter-productive and contributed to his depression.

I believe that the pendulum need to swing back in the direction of permitting arrest rather than requiring arrest. In addition, the police should be trained to assess the behaviors of the individuals in their home environments. This will allow the police on the scene to utilize their judgment as they view the circumstances of specific cases and act accordingly. Let’s resurrect common sense.