Bonding Agent’s Power Has Limits

Introduction – In a recent Colorado Criminal Appeal – The Colorado Supreme Court set limits on the so called “bonding agent privilege.” The Supreme Court said bounty hunters could not pose as police and break into a private home of someone suspected of jumping bail.

In Oram v. People Colorado Supreme Court — May 16, 2011 two bounty hunters pretended they were cops to gain entry into the home of someone suspected of jumping bail. Seeking to arrest a John Vigil, the house the two bounty hunters broke into belonged to their target’s brother,

The target had not lived there since the early ‘80’s according to the Court. Working without a photo or other measure to identify the bond jumper, they arrested an innocent man – Joe Martinez.

Later it was determined that their target was actually in jail.

At trial, each asserted the common law defense of Bonding Agent Privilege. The trial court gave a version of the Bonding Agent Privilege, and a jury found each guilty of burglary and felony menacing.

The Rule Arising From This Case

The common law defense of Bonding Agent Privilege does not exist in Colorado. Bonding agents do not have the right to make entry into a private residence without consent.

What was the Reasoning?

The Court rejected the law from other states, and held that the bond person privilege does not survive because the Colorado statute granting bond agents the authority to arrest does not grant bond agents authority to break-and-enter homes.

Here Is The Court’s Actual Ruling As Regards Section 16-4-108(1)(c), C.R.S. (2010)

“Section 16-4-108(1)(c), C.R.S. (2010), gives a bonding agent authority to seize and surrender a principal. This section, however, merely states that “a surety may seize and surrender the defendant” and, unlike the dicta in Taylor, does not give further instruction as to how the bonding agent may do so.

Further, the General Assembly has never stated that the right of a surety to seize the defendant is an affirmative defense. See generally §§ 18-1-501 to -505, C.R.S. (2010) (principals of criminal culpability); §§ 18-1-701 to -710, C.R.S. (2010) (justification and exemptions from criminal responsibility); §§ 18-1-801 to -805, C.R.S. (2010) (responsibility).

Thus, based on section 18-1-103(1)’s requirement that all defenses to defined offenses must be codified in the Colorado Revised Statutes, the common law bonding agent’s privilege has not survived and has been abrogated by the General Assembly in the general provisions of the criminal code and the burglary statutes….”

The Colorado General Assembly clearly stated that the relevant consent is that of the victim, not of some third party. See A.D. Store Co. v. Exec. Dir. of Dep?t of Revenue, 19 P.3d 680, 682 (Colo. 2001) (acknowledging that when the legislature specifically includes one thing in a statute, it implies the exclusion of another); see also State v. Mathis,509 S.E.2d 155, 161 (N.C. 1998) (holding that when the bonding agent is seeking the principal in the home of a third party where the principal does not reside, the bonding agent must first obtain consent from the homeowner to enter the premises).

Client Reviews
"Mr. Steinberg provided my family with expert handling of my son's case. He took extra time understand the case, to consult with us during the pretrial proceedings, and to support him for a plea agreement. Mr. Steinberg is very knowledge about the law and very professional. He guided us in achieving the best possible outcome for my son. If I am ever in need of law services again, I will certainly have Mr. Steinberg handle my case. l also highly recommend his services to anyone that might be in need of an excellent defense attorney!" Tanya Witt
"I found myself in criminal trouble, that I wasn't guilty of and thanks to Mr. Steinberg's dedication and hard work, right before we we're looking at having to continue on to trial level Mr. Steinberg was able to use his vast knowledge of the law and his many respected years in the system to find a way to show my innocence. After a very unsure and somewhat difficult time for me, this very skilled and knowledgeable attorney was able to find the right path to take to reach a dismissal in my case. For that I can't tell you how much I appreciate his representation and his excellent understanding and helpful personality. He's a great man and an even better attorney but don't misunderstand him, he is an attorney not a therapist. Thanks H." Josh
"Working with Michael Steinberg was a wonderful experience. Truly people need to know that he is a expert in what he does. His personality is compassionate, intellectual, and down to earth. I glean that Michael is fun to be around. In the time I worked with him, it was a pleasure to be around him. As for my case, the outcome was amazing and couldn’t be better. He has made my life more manageable because of the outcome of my case. I’ve worked with other lawyers in the Denver area. He is superior to them all. If you’re in need of a lawyer and you come across Mr. Steinberg look no further he’s going to be the one you need. Thank you again Michael." Renee Taylor
Mr. Steinberg, It has been an honor working with you. I very much appreciated your style, demeanor, patience, and determination. I was well instructed in every step of the court process, and I felt that I received excellent guidance and timely information regarding my case. You have been extremely thoughtful with your time, and I was very impressed with your sensitivity in responding to my requests. Thank you. Anonymous