NCJ Number
104937
Journal
Washburn Law Journal Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1986) Pages: 437-451
Date Published
1986
Length
21 pages
Annotation
In challenging a bail bondsman's authority to rearrest a principal, a plaintiff may sue under the private remedies of assault and battery, trespass, or false imprisonment or may sue for violation of the U.S. Constitution or the Civil Rights Act.
Abstract
In Taylor v. Taintor (1872), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bondsman may cross a State line, break and enter a principal's house, and use reasonable and necessary force to return a principal for trial. This is based on rights created in contract between the bondsman and the principal. The bondman's authority does have restrictions, however. The amount of force a bondsman may use in subduing a principal is analogous to the force a police officer may use in effecting an arrest, i.e., the force that is reasonable and necessary to overcome the principal's resistance to custody. The use of force beyond this measure makes the bondsman liable for assault and battery. Regarding claims of trespass against a bondsman in gaining custody of a principal, the courts have ruled that a bondsman may enter any dwelling where a principal is observed, after proper identification and reasonable actions to effect an arrest. A claim of false imprisonment is justified when the bondsman extends custody beyond the sole and exclusive purpose of bringing the principal back to the court where the bond was entered. The bringing of suit against a bondsman under claims of constitutional and Federal civil rights violations is permissible because the actions of a bondsman meet the tests for state action. 197 footnotes.