PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF BOUNTY HUNTER CONDUCT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR LICENSING AND REGULATION

BY

Mischelle Taylor Stone

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Social Science

2005

A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF BOUNTY HUNTER CONDUCT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR LICENSING AND REGULATION

BY
Mischelle Taylor Stone

This dissertation uses qualitative and quantitative
methods to examine the role of bounty hunters in the
criminal justice system, as well as their opinions about
licensing and regulation of their occupation. The research
addresses three major problems. First, there is virtually
no research on who bounty hunters are as an occupational
group. Second, there is no systematic documentation of how
they go about performing their work as private sector
agents in the criminal justice system. Third, there is no
understanding of the implications licensing and regulation
have on this occupational group.

While this study seeks to explore the social reality
of the bounty hunter, it also seeks to examine the tension
between the old and the new in bail enforcement work.

Using a combination of naturalistic inquiry, qualitative
measurement, and content analysis, an attempt is made to
expand our knowledge about the role of bail enforcement in
the criminal justice system, and to challenge the under-

lying assumptions social scientists, lawmakers, and

journalists have made about this role.

Constructivism is used as a theoretical framework to
conceptualize the day-to—day reality of the bounty hunter.
Data from the study suggest that bounty hunters use a
constructivist approach in their work that allows them to
systematically construct meaning of relevant factors in any
given situation, assess their importance, and apply them
accordingly. Further, the data suggest that some bounty
hunters do meet the occupational criteria for a profession;
however, it also suggests that the professional criteria
may not be met by many of those working in the occupation.
Because many members of this occupation lack systematic and
widespread participation in those activities that might
qualify the occupation as a profession, several recommenda-
tions are made that would assist the occupation in
achieving the professional status it seeks.

This study challenges previous assumptions about the
lack of standardized practices guiding the work bounty
hunters do. In doing so, it helps to inform the ways in
which licensing and regulation can help integrate the
occupation into the criminal justice system based on its
unique contributions, while at the same time protect the

public interest.

Copyright by
MISCHELLE TAYLOR STONE

2005

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Vince
Hoffman, Dr. Bruce Benson, Dr. Cy Stewart, and Dr. Laura
Bierema for the time and assistance they provided me. They
all gave generously of their time and energy, and each has
made a unique contribution to its completion.

I am also grateful to Dr. Frank Horvath for the many
contributions he made to my personal and professional
development during the time he was at MSU.

I also want to thank several bail enforcement agents.
Ken Bush and Dan Kane provided assistance in the early
stages of this project, and provided referrals to other
agents that helped to broaden the perspective of the study.
Scott Olson, President of the National Enforcement Agency
and owner of the National Institute of Bail Enforcement
gave generously of his time and expertise. His support for
this research and his insightful comments have given the
research depth and understanding that might not otherwise
be present. Jeff Kirkpatrick, Vice—President of the
Professional Bail Agents of the United States, provided
invaluable assistance in accessing members of the
association for inclusion in the study. The quality of
this study was enormously enhanced by the help all of these

people gave me by referring me to other agents.

I am also very appreciative of the assistance given to me
by individual members of Professional Bail Agents of the
United States and the members of the National Enforcement
Agency. Their willingness to open themselves up to the
scrutiny involved in this project speaks to the strength of
their commitment to advance their occupation and move
toward garnering professional status.

I also want to thank Dr. Steve Edwards, who was
gracious in his comments on an early draft of the proposal,
and my friends Scott Kunkel and Heith Copes for the support
they have given me with this project and others.

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to three other
people for the assistance they gave me while serving as
members of my committee early in my tenure at MSU. First, I
wish to thank Dr. Ken Christian, Professor Emeritus, whose
unwavering support for and confidence in me was a thread of
sanity to which I clung, however tenuously, on many
occasions. I value and respect his wisdom and feel honored
to be counted among his friends. I also want to thank the
late Dr. Chris Vanderpool. Although his physical contribu-
tion to my scholarly journey was cut short by his untimely
death, I am forever changed for having known him and having
been blessed by his intellect, good humor, and belief in

the goodness of the human spirit.

vi

I especially want to express my deep appreciation for the
contributions the late Dr. Denny Payne made to this project
and to my personal and professional development. Denny had
an uncanny way of cutting to the heart of any matter I came
to him with. He gave generously of his time and his wisdom
and I valued it more than he ever knew. I always left our
interactions feeling cared about as a human being, and his
presence in my life has made an immense difference.

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation and abiding
affection for Jean, without whom this journey would not
have been possible. She has given generously of all that
she has and is in order to help me along the way. I am

eternally grateful.

vfi

PREFACE

The Use of Pseudonyms for Interviewees

Due to my heavy reliance on qualitative data and the
frequent use of quotations obtained during participant
interviews, I have assigned pseudonyms to interviewees.
They are presented in Appendix A. One interviewee wished
to remain anonymous and is referred to as such. While the
names of the other interviewees have been changed for the
purposes of protecting their confidentiality, other
identifying information such as gender, years of experience
and regional residence is accurately reported for each

respondent.

\liii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... xi
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
The Problem of Bounty Hunters ....................... 2
Research Question and Approach ....................... 5
Significance of the Research ........................ 11
Chapter Summary ..................................... 13
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................ 14
History of Bail Bonding ............................. 14
The Relationship of Bounty Hunters to Bail Bondsmen.28
Chapter Summary ..................................... 41
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................... 42
Chapter Summary ..................................... 55
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY .............................................. 56
Research Techniques ................................. 56
Research Sample ..................................... 61
Data Collection ..................................... 65
Survey Questionnaires .......................... 65
Survey Response Rates .......................... 67
Interviews ..................................... 72
Interview Response Rates ....................... 79
Participant Observation ........................ 81
Chapter Summary ..................................... 87
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................... 89
Who Bounty Hunters Are .............................. 89
Personal Demographics .......................... 90
Professional Demographics ...................... 94
What Bounty Hunters Do and How They Do It .......... 132
Bounty Hunter Opinions Regarding Licensing and
Regulation ......................................... 160
Chapter Summary .................................... 184
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .............................. 185
Chapter Summary .................................... 212

ix

APPENDICES .............................................. 213

APPENDIX A:

Interviewee Pseudonyms ..................... 214

APPENDIX B: Sample Contract Between Bondsman and Bounty
Hunter ..................................... 218
APPENDIX C: Compendium of Bounty Hunter Laws ........... 222
APPENDIX D: Survey Questionnaire ....................... 231
APPENDIX E: Survey Questionnaire Cover Letter .......... 242
APPENDIX F: Informed Consent Form ...................... 244
APPENDIX G: Letter of Support from the National Institute
Of Bail Enforcement ........................ 246
APPENDIX H: Survey Questionaire Follow-Up Letter ....... 248
APPENDIX I: Interview Guide ............................ 250
APPENDIX J: Fieldwork Record ........................... 254
REFERENCES .............................................. 256

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

N

10:

11:

12:

13:

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Questionnaires Mailed Out and Returned,
and Response Rates for Each Group Included in the
Survey

Number of Interview Participants by Each
Survey Response Group

Personal Demographic Characteristics of Bail
Enforcement Agents Responding to the Survey
Questionnaire

Education Level Demographic Characteristics
of Bail Enforcement Agents Responding to the
Survey Questionnaire

Type of Degree and Major of Bail Enforcement
Agents Who Are College Graduates

Work Status and Income Characteristics of Bail
Enforcement Agents Responding to the Survey
Questionnaire

Type of Other Work Engaged In by Bail Enforcement
Agents Responding to the Survey Questionnaire

Geographical Region of Residence Reported by
Survey Respondents

Agents Reporting Licensing or Registration as a
State Requirement, and Whether They Are Licensed
or Registered in Any State

Types of Professional Licenses Held By Survey
Respondents

Type of Control Technique Certification Reported
by Survey Respondents

Site of Training Completion for Survey
Respondents by Type of Institute

Percentage of Bail Enforcement Agents Engaging in

On-The-Job Training and Number of Months Spent in
Training

xi

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:

19:

20:

21:

22:

Number and Percentage of Cases Worked by Type of
Referral Source

Number and Percentage of Cases Resulting in a
Successful Recovery

Mean Scores for Level of Importance of Fugitive
Characteristics and the Nature of the Bond in
Effecting a Successful Fugitive Recovery

Number and Percentage of Agents Reporting the
Routine Use of a Badge or Clothing as
Identification

Mean Scores for Level of Importance of Technical
Skills, Interactional Skills, Character Traits,
and Experiential Skills in Effecting a Successful
Fugitive Recovery

Mean Scores for Survey Respondents’ Opinions
Regarding the Role of Licensing and Regulation

Comparison of Attitudes About Licensing and
Registration for Agents With Less Than Five Years
of Experience and Agents With Five or More Years
of Experience

Comparison of Levels of Importance of Factors
Considered When Effecting a Fugitive Recovery

Comparison of Levels of Importance of Skills and

Personality Traits Used When Effecting a Fugitive
Recovery

xfi

INTRODUCTION

A number of events over the past several years have
brought considerable attention to the actions of bounty
hunters, and have resulted in new efforts to license and
regulate them. These efforts are related in large part to
the perception that lawmakers and others have of bounty
hunters as undereducated, unskilled and out of control.

Among the more notable events bringing attention to
bounty hunter conduct are the deaths of a 38—year-old man
who was shot and killed in a Pittsburgh home by two bounty
hunters in December, 2004, and of a man and his wife in
Phoenix, Arizona who were reportedly killed by bounty
hunters in September, 1996. Although initial media reports
of the Phoenix killings portrayed the group of five men as
bounty hunters working for a bail company out of Cali-
fornia, it was later discovered that the men were not
employed in that capacity, and were in fact, simply
engaging in an act of burglary. Quoted in the Philadelphia
Enquirer a week after the initial media account of the
incident, Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley (1997)
stated, “Bounty hunting was just a ruse to get out of
trouble if they got caught” (p. 1). Despite this
acknowledgement and on—going publication of the events

surrounding the arrests of the five men, the perception of

lawmakers, journalists and the public in general is that
bounty hunters are out of control and in need of greater
regulation. While many of these media-generated accounts
of bounty hunter conduct often lack factual accuracy, they,
along with movies and “reality” television shows, are
largely responsible for our perception of bounty hunters as
rogue entrepreneurs who are on the side of the law but who
are not bound by it. This is important, because this
perception appears to be an important factor in recent
efforts to regulate their conduct.
The Problem of Bounty Hunters

Alternately known as fugitive recovery agents, bail
enforcement agents, and skip tracers, bounty hunters are
responsible for the return of people (fugitives) to the
court after they have failed to appear at a court hearing,
effectively “skipping” out on the bail that has been
posted. The bail may have been posted by the defendant, but
in many cases it is posted by a bail bondsman, relative, or
friend on their behalf. When the defendant fails to show
up for the court hearing, the amount of the bail is ordered
forfeited to the court if the defendant (now a fugitive)
cannot be returned to the court within a specified period

of time.

The historical tradition of the bounty hunter dates
back to the thirteenth century in Europe (Tablowsky and
Quinn, 1993), and in the United States bounty hunters
have served as private sector law enforcement agents for
over two centuries (Pope, 1998). Despite this long
history, most of what we know about bounty hunters and the
work they do comes from highly sensationalized media
accounts of their conduct.

The actions of bounty hunters involved in the events
in Pittsburgh and Phoenix are only two examples of several
incidents involving bounty hunters over the years. Concerns
expressed by lawmakers, journalists, and the public about
these types of incidents appear to center primarily on the
nature and extent of the unregulated authority bounty
hunters have in conducting search and arrest activities.
This authority, granted in an 1872 U.S. Supreme Court
rulingl, grants broad powers to bounty hunters to arrest a
defendant without being encumbered by many of the
restrictions imposed upon police. This authority is granted
to them by virtue of their association with a bail

bondsman. The ruling reads, in part:

 

lSee Taylor v. Taintor, 83, 0.3. (16 Wall.)366, 371—72
(1872).

Whenever they choose to do so may seize him [the

fugitive] and deliver him up in their discharge;

and if this cannot be done at once may imprison

him until it can be done. They may pursue him to

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 process. None is needed. It is likened

to the arrest by the sheriff of an escaping

prisoner...

Taylor essentially authorizes the bondsman and his agents

to:
(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)

continue custody over the principal

seize the principal without process

imprison the principal until the latter may be
surrendered into the custody of the state
utilize agents

pursue the principal into another state

break and enter the principal’s dwelling

Although the freedom supplied to bondmen and their bounty

hunter agents in Taylor is not absolute, it does allow them

to act with extremely broad discretion as long as they can

demonstrate a good-faith belief that the residence being

entered belongs to the suspect or is the residence the

defendant listed in his bail contract. Still, fugitive
recovery agents generally enjoy sweeping legal powers, and
despite the fact that their powers often exceed those of
police officers, many states have historically been
reluctant to regulate them. As Paul Wice (1974) points
out, states have not only resisted regulating their
actions, but have historically “...allowed ...bounty
hunters to assume an increased importance” (p. 50). How-
ever, this reluctance to regulate the conduct of bounty
hunters appears to be fading fast in light of recent events
involving their perceived misconduct.

Our lack of knowledge about this occupational group
contributes to a lack of understanding about the intri-
cacies and nuances of their work, and allows the image of
the bounty hunter as uneducated, unskilled, violent, and
out of control, to dominate our thinking about them. This
dissertation seeks to examine this image as it is rooted in
the reality of the day-to-day lives of bounty hunters and
the work they do, and to explore the implications of
licensing and regulation for this occupational group.

Research Question and Approach

 

The research described in this dissertation is an
exploratory study that seeks to answer the following

questions: (1) what are the personal backgrounds and work

experiences of bounty hunters? (2) what is the process by
which they identify and employ situational factors in
effecting a fugitive recovery? and (3) what are their views
and perspectives regarding the licensing and regulation of
their occupation? The primary goal of the research is to
inform our knowledge about who bounty hunters are, and to
examine the role they play in the criminal justice system.
While there does appear to be a small body of literature
that examines their role in a legal context, most of what
we know comes from anecdotal2 or media—generated accounts.
Some of these accounts are relayed via television shows,
movies, or documentaries, and others from bounty hunters
themselves. These accounts are frequently “charged” with
adrenaline-based footage of bounty hunters in hot pursuit
of a fugitive in the dark of night, shotguns loaded and
poised for action. A current television show has as its
star a shirtless bounty hunter decked out in a silver-
studded leather vest chasing bail skips around an island
community. Frequently accompanied by his bounty hunting

wife, (who is clad in pink hot pants and a low-cut, tight

 

2For the most comprehensive anecdotal account of the work
done by bounty hunters, see Bounty Hunter by Bob Burton
(1984), and The Seekers, by Joshua Armstrong and Anthony
Bruno (2000).

fitting knit top designed to show off her ample bosom),
these two “agents” are armed with cans of mace the size of
small fire extinguishers.

Contemporary novels that have bounty hunters (both
male and female) as their central characters portray the
main character engaged in fool-hardy escapades that
alternately result in the bounty hunter shooting someone
(justifiably, of course), or endlessly running in circles
only to “stumble” on the fugitive and make a recovery as
the book rises to its comedic end. While humorously
entertaining, these accounts do little to inform us about
the realities of the work this occupational group does, and
may, in fact, support the stubborn myths associated with
their work-related identity and their tasks. Given their
long history of association with the criminal justice
system, it is important that their identity and their work
be examined systematically in a context related to their
day-to—day activities within this system, and not in a
self-serving media—generated context that exploits them and
their work for pure entertainment value. Without such an
examination we will continue to experience a void in our
understanding of how the work they do impacts the criminal

justice system, and how this affects our ability to make

informed decisions about what, if any, measures should be
taken to regulate their conduct.

Using an exploratory research design, I attempt to
create rich descriptions of the complex circumstances that
describe who bounty hunters are and what they do. One such
set of circumstances is that of experienced bounty hunters
as they try to arrest a fugitive who has jumped bail.

Given the secretive and stealthy nature of their work,
bounty hunters frequently work on the “fringes” of the
criminal justice system and enhance their effectiveness in
making a recovery by not being noticed. This has made an
examination of their work especially challenging.

This methodological challenge is addressed using a
variety of research methods, including surveys, interviews,
and fieldwork. As Patton (2002:247) notes, using several
kinds of methods embodied within both qualitative and
quantitative approaches can strengthen a study. As
described by Denzin (1983), this “methodological
triangulation” has the advantage of providing diverse ways
of examining the same phenomenon. Given that so little is
known about whom bounty hunters are or what they do, it was
important to utilize methods that would facilitate the

greatest amount of access to the bounty hunters themselves.

V The data upon which this research is based come from
utilizing the three methods outlined above. Clearly, the
use of survey methodology provides the greatest access to
the largest number of people (Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar,
1981; Dillman, 1978;). It is also a cost—effective tool
that can be used to generate knowledge about a large number
of people across a broad spectrum of opinions, behaviors,
and attitudes (Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar, 1981). In this
study, one hundred forty—seven bounty hunters completed
surveys. These completed surveys yielded information about
the following: (1) their demographic characteristics; (2)
the factors they identify and consider when effecting a
recovery, and (3) their opinions about the nature and
extent of bounty hunter regulation. The data obtained from
these completed surveys was analyzed using quantitative
methods to identify patterns of responses, and to elucidate
relationships between demographic characteristics,
attitudes, and opinions. For example, the opinions bounty
hunters had regarding the licensing and regulation of their
occupation were examined in a context of the number of
years of experience they had working as a bounty hunter.

In addition to describing who bounty hunters are, this
research also sought to explore the nuances of bounty

hunter work. To address this issue, 71 bounty hunters were

interviewed from a subset of survey respondents who
indicated their willingness to participate in an interview.
I conducted these interviews using an interview guide.
While it would have been ideal for each of the interviews
to be conducted in person, this was cost and time
prohibitive. As a result, some of the interviews were
conducted via telephone, and others were conducted in
person when it was economically and geographically feasible
to do so.

As Patton (2002) notes, the use of interviews provides
a depth of understanding that cannot be obtained using only
pre-selected, standardized questions of the nature seen in
surveys. The interview guide I used in this study outlined
general areas of interest to me that could not be effi-
ciently explored in the survey, but could be during the
interview. The areas explored in depth included the in-
dividual’s demographic background, training and experience,
knowledge related to job performance, and opinions about
licensing and regulation. For example, interview partici-
pants were asked to explain how they entered the field of
fugitive recovery, to summarize their “philosophy” of
fugitive recovery work, and to identify specific factors
they considered when assessing how “dangerous” a fugitive

recovery situation was.

10

While not providing the breadth of analysis that
survey research provided, this type of qualitative analysis
facilitated an understanding of individual experiences that
was not possible to obtain using only survey data.

In addition to surveys and interviews, fieldwork was
also conducted. Like interview participants, fieldwork
participants were selected from a subset of those survey
participants who indicated a willingness to have the
researcher participate in a fieldwork experience with them.
As was the case with interviews, more extensive fieldwork
would have been completed had time and cost not been
considered. However, such was not the case. As a result,
this observational method was used with a very small number
of participants in an effort to provide rich contextual
detail that gave insight into the setting in which the
bounty hunters conducted their work, the activities that
took place within that setting, and the meanings the bounty
hunters attached to those activities.

Significance of the Research

The goal of this research was to increase our under-
standing of who bounty hunters are, what they do, and what
role they play in the criminal justice system. Using sys-
tematic data-gathering techniques, an attempt was made to

gather personal and occupational information that described

11

who they are and the work they do, to solicit their opin-
ions about licensing and regulation of the occupation, and
to document their experiences. At a time when nearly 62%
of pretrial felony defendants are released on bail-22% of
whom fail to appear for their court appearances (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2000)—these issues have particular
significance.

This study has implications for our understanding of
the occupational attributes of bounty hunters and their
role in the criminal justice system; however it has special
significance for a thorough understanding of the tensions
between the old and the new-between the bounty hunter as
rogue entrepreneur, and the bounty hunter as private sector
law enforcement agent. It also has implications for the
fundamental assumptions we make about what their back-
grounds and experiences are, and for the regulatory control
that flows from these assumptions. Further, it has
implications for our understanding of how adults learn.

Since this is the most comprehensive study of bounty
hunters to date, it will also have significance for future
researchers wishing to better understand the contributions
private sector actors make in public sector functions.

This may assist in forging new public—private sector rela-

tionships that move past the tenuous handholding that cur-

12

rently characterizes the relationship between bounty
hunters and the rest of the criminal justice system.
CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has provided an introduction to the
study, including a statement of the problem, the sig—
nificance of the problem, and the methods used to research
the problem. The purpose of this research is to answer the
following questions: (1) what are the personal and
professional backgrounds of bounty hunters? (2) what are‘
the situational factors they identify and employ in
effecting a successful recovery? and (3) what are their
views and perspectives regarding the licensing and
regulation of their occupation? Both the quantitative and
qualitative methods used to gather data to answer these
questions are identified.

The implications for this research are also identi-
fied. Among these implications are those that relate to
bounty hunting as a profession, the establishment of “best
practices” in the work they do, the impact of licensing and
regulation on the occupation, and our knowledge about the

processes involved in adult learning.

13

CHAPTER 1
L ITERATURE REVI EW

Nearly all of the scholarly works that address bounty
hunter conduct are found in the literature that examines
their conduct in relation to the law. Much of this work
focuses on the extent to which bounty hunters are state
actors, and/or the extent to which their powers of arrest
ought to be constrained. While a legal framework provides
a useful context for the examination of specific aspects of
bounty hunter conduct (especially their broad powers
related to search and arrest), it is less informative for
the development of a comprehensive understanding of who
bounty hunters are or how the work they do impacts on the
criminal justice system. A more useful context for
understanding these issues is their relationship to the

3 in particular.

bail bond process generally, and bondsmen
The History of Bail Bonding

While the exact origins of bail bonding are unknown,
Goldfarb (1965) notes that it was during the first thousand
years A.D. that a system of bail bonding began to develop

in England.’ During the thirteenth century in England,

 

3 While it would generally be appropriate to use a term that
is more gender-neutral, here the term bondman is used
because it is reflective of the term the industry uses for
someone who writes bonds, regardless of gender.

14

magistrates began traveling between counties, spending a
few months a year in each locality. To prevent prolonged
detention of suspects, the local sheriff would often
release prisoners on their own recognizance or into the
custody of family members. Later, prisoners were released
into the custody of a surety4 (Tablowsky and Quinn, 1993:
267). In transferring custody of the principal5 to the
surety, it was recognized that there was no distinction
between state incarceration and a surety's custody
(Drimmer, 1996:745). As such, bondsmen were obliged to
retrieve the fugitive and return him to the court, just as
if he were in the custody of the police. In requiring
such, common law failed to differentiate between the
recapture of a suspect by a sheriff and the arrest of a
fugitive by a bondsman to avoid forfeiting bail. By grant-
ing these powers to fulfill these obligations to the state,
the law viewed the actions of the bondsman and his bounty
hunters to be those of the state (Doane, 1985:216; Drimmer,

1996: 747).

 

‘ The party posting the bail is referred to as the “bail
bondsman” or “surety".

5 The “principal” is the person arrested and freed on bond
while awaiting trial.

15

Today, much remains the same in the United States.
Bail bondsmen are given their authority to “recover”
defendants who have skipped bail by failing to appear in
court by courts in local jurisdictions. In most cases, the
application process for approval as a bonding agent simply
requires a letter of request to the court and a demonstra—
tion of the ability to financially cover the posted bonds.
As such, many bail bondsmen operate through large insurance
companies because they are more likely to be indemnified
via their association with the insurance industry. Not
many “mom and pop” bail bond agencies have the financial
resources to cover all the bonds they might possibly write
at the time they submit their application for approval.
Furthermore, in every state that allows surety bonds, bail
bondsmen are required to be licensed and are regulated as
an agent of the insurance industry.

The regulation of bail bondsmen relates primarily to
their ability to post bond for a defendant, and speaks more
to their function as fiduciary agents and guarantors of
bail that it does to the broad powers they enjoy as agents
of the state to “seize and deliver” a defendant upon the
forfeiture of bail (Doane, 1985:216). Much more has been
written about the contractual aspects of the bond writing

business and the reciprocity between the bondsman and the

16

courts than about the broad discretionary powers of search
and arrest afforded bail bondsmen and their bounty hunter
agents (e.g., Doane, 1985; Landes, 1974; Toborg, 1983).

In particular, there have been few attempts to examine the
role of bail agents and the bounty hunters they hire as
private sector enforcement agents.

There was one important difference between bail
bonding in Europe and bail bonding in the United States.
Early in the history of bail bonding in England, a bail
bondsman was given actual physical custody of the principal
and was allowed, if the surety so desired, to imprison the
principal the same as if he was the sheriff (Devine, 1991).
It was, however, rare that the surety had to imprison the
principal. This was largely due to the fact that prince-
pals had strong ties to their local communities (which were
homogenous in their make up), and there was a general lack
of mobility between communities. Unlike Medieval England,
however, the United States was not homogenous and people
did not know each other well (Chamberlin, 1998). This was
especially true in the years following the industrial
revolution. Even though the relationship between the
surety and the principal was more anonymous, the role of

the bondsman in the United States was an important one in

17

pre-trial release proceedings and preventing jail
overcrowding.

Currently, the source of a bondsman’s authority to
seize up and arrest a principal derives not just from
common law, but from state statutes (Doane, 1985; Hansen,
1981; Toborg, 1983). The authority of a bondsman to
recapture a principal is not a matter of criminal
procedure, but is instead a matter of private contract
between the bondsman and the principal. In some states,
the courts view the relevant statute as a mere codification
of common law; in others, there is an attempt to regulate
the behavior of the bondsmen and their agents, especially
as it relates to the search and arrest procedures for
principals who have failed to present for trial (Doane,
1985:219). It is the lack of procedural safeguards in
common law that underlie problems currently identified as
being unique to bail bondsmen and their bounty hunter
agents.

The 0.8. Constitution, while not specifically
guaranteeing bail, does guarantee a bail hearing in
criminal cases and prevents excessive bail from being

required.6 At the bail hearing, a judge makes a decision as

 

6See us. CONST. AMEND. VIII (stating that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required”).

18

to whether a person can post bail to ensure their
appearance for future court dates. The judge makes the
decision whether to grant the bail based primarily on two
factors: (1) the need to protect the public from the
person, and (2) the need to guarantee the person's
appearance in court. In addition to making a determination
about the person’s eligibility for bail, the judge also
determines what type of bond will be requested and how much
(if anything) it will be. A defendant can be denied bail
or he can be released on three different types of bail
bond: cash/surety, “ten percent,” or personal recognizance.
If the person is released on personal recognizance, no
money is required to be paid to the court in order to be
released. People arrested for misdemeanor offenses are
often released on personal recognizance, especially if they
do not have violent histories and have ties to the
community in which they are living. Many defendants,
however, must post bail in order to be released from jail
until the time of their trial, and most states allow for
surety bonds. This means that they will allow the bail bond
to be posted by a bondsman, a family member or a friend.

In many cases, defendants turn to bail bondsmen to post the
bail because the defendant, his relatives or friends cannot

afford the bail.

19

The majority of states have a “ten percent rule” that
allows a defendant to post ten percent of the cash bail
bond to secure his release from jail. The ten percent rule
was enacted in many states in the late 1970s after civil
libertarian groups successfully argued in the courts that
only the rich were eligible to bond out under the old cash
surety system (where the total cash amount of the bail bond
was required to be posted prior to release from jail
pending trial). With the enactment of the ten percent
rule, bail bonds became affordable for more people. In
becoming more affordable, however, it also decreased the
need for the bail bondsman. For example, if a defendant is
arrested for drunk driving in a state that has enacted the
ten percent rule, he would be eligible to post $500.00 on a
$5,000.00 bond. Thus, he could post $500.00 himself and be
released from jail. If he could not post the $500.00
himself (or with the assistance of friends and/or family),
he would contact a bail bondsman. The bondsman would have
the defendant sign a contract guaranteeing his appearance
for all court proceedings, and would charge the defendant
approximately 10% of the cash amount for his willingness to
post the bond in the court.‘ Under the ten percent rule,
bondsmen are limited to charging a 10% fee on the bond.

However, because the amount the bondsman charges is the

20

same as the ten percent amount of the bond the defendant
would pay to the court himself, the defendant often
bypasses the bondsman and pays the ten percent directly to
the court. Therefore, many bondsmen no longer post many
bonds in ten percent cases. In cases involving large
cash/surety bonds, the bondsman may require that the
defendant offer some collateral on the contract, so that in
the event he does not pay the bondsman, or in the event he
“skips” on the contract, the bondsman still has civil
recourse to collect the amount due. Typical collateral
includes vehicles, homes, boats, or other recreational
vehicles. At times, parents and other relatives will offer
the collateral for the defendant if he has none of his own
to offer to the bondsman. Additionally, in contractually
identifying the residence where he will be staying during
his pre-trial release, the defendant gives the bail
bondsman the right to enter the residence at will.

Further, the bondsman is contractually guaranteed the
ability to arrest the defendant at any time he suspects the
bond contract is about to be violated, and is not re-
quired to wait for an actual violation before returning the
defendant to jail and securing the return of his bond from

the court.

21

It is of interest to note here what procedurally
happens to a bail bond in the event that a defendant fails
to appear for a scheduled hearing and the court orders the
bond forfeited to the court. In the case of a bond posted
by a bondsman, the whole amount of the bond is forfeited.
Thus, if the bondsman has posted $500.00 (10% of a
$5,000.00 bond) to the court, he must provide remuneration
to the court for an additional amount of $4,500.00. In the
event that the defendant himself has posted the $500.00,
the court is, in some states, able to extract the remaining
$4,500.00 from a state taxpayer fund. Thus, the benefit of
having bondsmen and their agents secure a defendant's
appearance in court extends not just to the defendant and
the bondsman, but to the taxpayer, as well.

To guarantee that defendants appear in court, bondsmen
often employ bounty hunters. As agents of bail bondsmen,
bounty hunters are afforded the broad discretionary powers
vested in the bondsmen by the court (Drimmer, 1996). In
granting custody of the defendant to the bail bondsman, the
state gives the bondsman and his agents comprehensive
powers to search for and arrest the defendant. It is the
responsibility of the court to notify the bondsman if the
defendant fails to appear for any of his scheduled

hearings. If a defendant fails to appear in court, the

22

court holds an initial bond forfeiture hearing, at which
time the bondsman is given a specific period of time (often
ranging from ten to ninety days) to return the person to
the court for his hearing. In the event the bond has been
posted by family members or friends, courts often extend
this period of time, sometimes extending it to one year.
While many bail bondsmen would prefer to recover a
defendant who has “skipped” on bail themselves, time often
constrains their ability to do so, especially since so many
bondsmen have a business to run. While some bail bondsmen
do post information about the fugitive onto the Internet,
most prefer to contract directly with individual bounty
hunters they have a history of working with (see a sample
contract in Appendix B). Despite the existence of
stereotypes to the contrary, most bail bondsmen make every
effort to stay away from generic Internet postings because,
despite broad legal power to seize and detain fugitives,
they remain civilly liable for agents acting on their
behalf. Thus, it is in their best business interest to
minimize the possibility that errors in process or judgment
Will result in harm to the defendant or to an innocent
Victim (Anonymous interview: 1998).

Because bondsmen can facilitate a defendant’s release

frontincarceration before trial, they save the state a

23

significant expense. In addition, they are able to
guarantee the return of the defendant with greater ability
than the police (Doane, 1985; Drimmer, 1996; Hansen, 1981;
Toborg, 1983), and this makes their appeal to the court
system and law enforcement all that much greater.

There are several indications that the private bail
bonding system generally works well. For example, the
fugitive rate for defendants out on bail posted by bondsmen
is approximately 1%; for personal recognizance and other
forms of bail, it is estimated to be anywhere from 8% to
15% (Anonymous, 1998; Reynolds, 1994). As one bondsman
stated, “If my failure to appear rate was anywhere near
four to five percent, I would be out of business. I
couldn’t possibly afford to lose that amount to the
courts...” (Anonymous, 1998). Further, this same bail
bondsman reports that “almost forty percent of all failures
to appear turn out to be simple misunderstanding on the
part of the defendant about the court date or time”
(Anonymous, 1998).

While several analyses of the bail bond system have
been constructed in the past, most have focused on the
“draconian nature” of the bail bond system in general, and
the profitability of such a system for either the courts or

the public (American Bar Association, 1980; Landes, 1974;

24

Toborg, 1983). In response to several of these analyses, a
variety of “bail reforms” (including the ten percent
system) have been initiated to reduce the importance of the
bail bondsman in the pre-trial process (Toborg, 1983:141).
In some states (Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, Maine, and
Wisconsin) commercial bail has been eliminated altogether.
There has not, however, been a concurrent level of examina-
tion of the role of bail bondsmen and their agents as it
relates to the recapture of fugitives as a mechanism for
guaranteeing their surety.

As previously noted, the American bail system is
predicated on a concern over undue detention of arrestees.
As Hansen (1981) states, “Pre—trial release, whether by
bail, personal recognizance, or some other method, is
premised upon the maxim that every individual is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (p.
597). Because not every person is innocent, however, any
system of pre-trial release must balance the rights of the
accused with the needs of society to assure his presence at
trial (Drimmer, 1996:749; Hansen, 1981:597). Early in the
history of bail bonding in the U.S. judges were usually
acquainted with both defendants and sureties. This
familiarity was often the basis for the issuance of surety,

and for the most part, there was little problem with

25

defendants not appearing for trial. However, as the nation
expanded during the mid-19U‘century, deep community roots
and relationships began to disappear. As a result,
personal surety evolved into a commercial system, with
bondsmen engaging in surety practices to make a profit
(Drimmer, 1996). This was facilitated by the perception
that people who lacked deep communal roots would constitute
a greater risk of not appearing for trial, and subsequently
presented a greater financial risk to the bail bondsman.

It was during this time that the bondsman also came to be
viewed as proxy for the state, and bail was specifically
viewed as a form of continued imprisonment (Doane, 1985;
Drimmer, 1996).

This alignment of the bondsman with the interests of
the state underlies the lack of procedural safeguards in
fugitive arrests. This has resulted in some cases of abuse
perpetrated by bail bondsmen upon fugitives and their
families; however as Doane (1985) notes, courts have been
reluctant to address such abuses:

Because sureties possess such universally

accepted authority to make arrests, courts may

prefer to dispose of particular instances of

surety abuse of principals by relying on tenuous

26

analysis rather than impose liability on a surety

for abusing his authority (p. 221).

This arrangement is complicated by the fact that law
enforcement officials have come to rely even more heavily
on bondsmen due to the lack of available resources within
the publicly funded criminal justice system to facilitate
fugitive retrieval. Toborg (1983) argues that bondsmen
also diffuse responsibility for the release of defendants,
which serves to insulate judges from adverse publicity that
may arise if a defendant commits another crime while
released on bail. Thus, the role of the bail bondsman
plays into the overall “success” of the courts as an
important factor in state sanctioning of the authority of
bail bondsmen and their bounty hunter agents. So, too, is
the use of bounty hunters a significant reason that the
private bail system works.

Reynolds (1994) has argued that the success in the
private bail system, combined with the failures of the
public bail system, suggest that private, commercial bail
bonding is a preferred alternative to either personal
recognizance bonds or a public bail system administered by
tax-funded pretrial release agencies. Some states have
adopted the use of pretrial release agencies as an

alternative to the private bail bond system. Where the

av

27

original intent of the involvement of pretrial release
agencies in the bond business was to provide help to
indigent, nonviolent defendants who couldn’t afford to post
bond, it has evolved into a system characterized by high
fail—to—appear rates of approximately 17% (Reynolds, 1994).
Further, Reynolds (1994:18) argues that such systems
involve higher costs to taxpayers, and that the pretrial
release agency staff members have no real incentives to
keep their fugitive rates low. Other problems with the
system are related to the fact that pretrial release
defendants commit twice as many crimes while awaiting trial
as did defendants released on private bail (Reynolds,
1994:19).
The Relationship of Bounty Hunters to Bail Bondsmen

One of the reasons for the overall success of the
private bail bond system is the relationship between bail
bondsmen and bounty hunters. Although their exact numbers
are not known, estimates of the number of bounty hunters
range from 4,000 to 7,000 (Anonymous, 1998; National Center
for Policy Analysis, 1996). Despite new legislation in
many states in the past five years establishing criteria
for who may become a bounty hunter, few states specifically
require licensing or registration. While some states have

established specific licensing criteria, most only

28

establish “occupational” criteria. For example, California
requires that bounty hunters be at least 18 years old and
complete two power-of—arrest courses. In Nevada, bounty
hunters must be at least twenty one years of age and have
no arrests for felonies or drug offenses. They must pass a
drug test, prove mental fitness, and take a minimum of 80
hours of training in courses ranging from constitutional
law to arrest procedures. Four states-~Oregon, Wisconsin,
Illinois, and Kentucky-bar bounty hunters from arresting or
apprehending fugitives. Illinois requires that a fugitive
be provided with an extradition hearing prior to being
extradited back to the state from which they fled. Texas
requires that bail jumpers be apprehended by either a
licensed security guard or a private detective. Illinois,
Oregon and Kentucky have eliminated commercial bail
altogether as a method of securing pre-trial release. Only
eleven states require bounty hunters to be licensed.
Several states require bounty hunters to notify police when
they are effecting an arrest. And until only recently when
new legislation was passed in Arizona requiring bounty
hunter registration, police in that state were specifically
prohibited from interfering with bounty hunters (for a
complete listing of bounty hunter laws compiled by the

American Bail Institute, see Appendix C).

29

State legislation passed within the past five years in
many states has been designed to address a lack of
“internal or external consistency” in the way commercial
bail bondsmen and their agents have operated (Hansen,
1981). This apparent lack of accountability has recently
come under close scrutiny by journalists and lawmakers and
appears to largely be a result of the heightened publicity
surrounding perceived abuses perpetrated by bounty hunters
during their fugitive recovery operations.

There is no doubt that the role of bondsmen in
general, and bounty hunters specifically, have expanded in
the past two decades. This expansion is consistent with
the increasing privatization of public functions (Bayley
and Shearing, 1996; Drimmer, 1996; McMullen, 1996; O’Leary,
1994; South, 1989). Drimmer (1996) relates this to a
general trend toward privatization of law enforcement:

Nowhere are those efforts [toward privatization]

more evident than in law enforcement. The

skyrocketing crime rate now costs the nation a

total of $425 billion each year, requiring

appropriations for the criminal justice system of
over 1.5% of the gross domestic national product.

The expenses associated with incarceration are

particularly high, as states spend approximately

30

$20,000 a year on each of the approximately one
million prisoners that overcrowd the nations
jails...While some states have experimented with
alternative prison and police proposals, the
efficiency and superior service associated with
the private sector has led many states to enter
into contracts with private entities to perform

various elements of law enforcement (p. 760).

As Drimmer notes, expenditures on the criminal justice far
exceed $400 billion. It is of note that these expenditures
do not include the tens of billions of dollars currently
being spent on Homeland Security that were appropriated in
the three years following the terrorist attacks on the
nation in September, 2001. Notably, his analysis also does
not include data from the past decade, which has seen the
number of incarcerated individuals increase to nearly two
million, and the cost per year of incarceration jump to
nearly $22,000 per year (BJS, 2004).

As states increasingly rely on private bondsmen to
assist in pretrial custodial arrangements, the importance
of the bondsman is heightened for both the state and the
fugitive. By effectively holding the keys to jail over—
crowding, bondsmen ingratiate themselves into the criminal

justice system in ways that serve the goals established by

31

police and corrections officials who are operating on
reduced budgets (Doane, 1985; Drimmer, 1996; Hansen,
1981,). As a result, police, court and corrections
officials rely on bail bondsmen to reduce the incarcerated
population, and on bounty hunters to locate defendants
either before an initial arrest or after an escape.7
Despite the reliance of the criminal justice system on
bondsmen and bounty hunters, courts still generally refuse
to regulate them as actors of the state. This refusal
creates an inherent irony in their position in the criminal
justice system, especially for bounty hunters. Although
their authority is established via their position as proxy
for the state, the state generally fails to recognize them
solely as state actors. Instead, they enjoy a kind of
legal and professional ambivalence that has portrayed them
on the one hand as agents of the state, and on the other
hand as independent contract agents engaging in private
enterprise endeavors. This appears to be due to the fact
that it is the state who is the major beneficiary of bounty

hunters' broad powers (Drimmer, 1996; Hansen, 1981) despite

7'ZE‘or insight into the use of bounty hunters, one only has to
look at the case of the FBI's use of private bounty hunters
in their search for suspected Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph,
and the capture of international fugitive Andrew Luster in
Mexico by a private bounty hunter after the FBI could not
locate him.

32

the business nature of the arrangement between the bondsman
and the fugitive. As Drimmer (1996) points out, however,
there is an apparent contradiction in this rationale:

...while private actors do not face the

constitutional limitations of police officers,

neither do they enjoy the same powers of search
and arrest. Private debt collections, for
instance, exemplify agents that courts have not
deemed state actors constrained by constitutional
standards and that, accordingly, do not enjoy
rights greater than other private actors,
regardless of the contractual terms between

lender and debtor (p. 764).

Because bounty hunters enjoy considerably more freedom
from constitutional limitations than do other private
actors, they are perceived as having significantly more
authority than even the police have. They can, for
example, search for and arrest suspects regardless of
whether they have escaped confinement or failed to appear
for trial. And except in those jurisdictions where it is
specifically prohibited, they may arrest and transport
subjects back to court at any time. They do not have to
mirandize a suspect when they arrest him. Neither do they

have to announce their presence before entering a dwelling

33

offered as collateral on a bond. Drimmer (1996) argues
that these freedoms result from the value of bondsmen and
their agents to the criminal justice system, and also
underlie their threat to private citizens. He also argues
that the general lack of regulation of bounty hunters and
the unique role they play in the criminal justice system
are a result of the extent to which states benefit from
their services. Bail penal amounts, for example, nearly
tripled from $375 million to $968 million between 1982 and
1992 (Becker, 1994:26). Thus, states not only profit from
the presence of bounty hunters in the criminal justice
system in general, but from their efficiency and use of
unregulated authority. Drimmer (1996) argues that despite
the use of excessive and indiscriminate force, states have
been reluctant to consider the elimination (or even
modification) of bounty hunters’ authority because of their
cost saving benefits to the states.

In spite of his harsh criticism of what he sees as
bounty hunter abuse of their broad discretionary powers,
Drimmer (1996) acknowledges that stripping bounty hunters
of these powers would “...hinder their abilities and
decrease their impetus to find and return dangerous
criminals to the court’s jurisdiction” (p.777). In fact,

he acknowledges that the role of the bounty hunter in

34

contemporary criminal justice poses an anomaly. On the one
hand, the activities of bounty hunters have been considered
both corrupt and corrupting, and on the other their value
to the criminal justice system is indisputable.

The indispensable role of bounty hunters in the crimi—
nal justice system extends to every arena of the system,
including police, courts and corrections. Many people,
including legislators, argue that it is untenable that
bounty hunters should not be subjected to state regulations
and control given their symbiotic relationship with the
criminal justice system. This belief has led to recent
initiatives at both the state and federal levels of
government to regulate them. For example, several states,
including Arizona, have recently passed legislation that
more clearly specifies who may become a bounty hunter and
what the training requirements are for those wishing to
engage in fugitive recovery work. At the federal level,
Representative Asa Hutchinson (R-Arkansas) sponsored the
Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act (2000)--legislation that
would have required national registration of bounty
hunters. Although this legislation never made it out of
committee, it was a seminal attempt at national regulation

of bounty hunters.

35

While some have argued for increased regulation of
bounty hunters, others point out that bounty hunters act as
agents of bondsmen, who, for the most part, are already
licensed and regulated by insurance industries in the
various states. In many states, bondsmen are required to
maintain a high degree of accountability in their record-
keeping, and are generally prohibited from contracting with
government officials or offering incentives to potential
clients (Anonymous, 1998; Dill, 1975).

The problem, it seems, is one of balancing the
positive contributions bounty hunters make to the criminal
justice system while protecting the interests and safety of
the public. Too, there must be some awareness among
legislators of how regulating bounty hunters would change
the fundamental nature of bail bonding, and might even
eliminate it altogether. If, for example, legislation
prohibits a bondsman from recovering fugitives from another
state, why would any bondsman write a bond for anyone who
posed even the slightest threat of fleeing the state? Much
like bankers who underwrite mortgages based on credit his—
tories, bail bond agents are likely to refuse bonds to
anyone except those for whom the surest collateral can be
offered. In many cases, this would involve repossessing

the collateral posted by family members, and would involve

36

the forfeiture of homes, vehicles and other possessions.
There would be no attempt on the part of the bondsman to
recover the defendant; instead, he would simply forfeit the
bond to the court and go after the collateral posted by the
defendant and/or the family members.

As Hansen (1981) notes, eliminating private bail from
the bail process altogether would necessitate that it be
replaced with an alternative system. He proposes two
primary pretrial release methods to replace the surety
system, both of which are already in place in some states
and are being considered in others:

...alternatives include release upon personal

recognizance (possibly attended by restrictive

conditions), which has in many jurisdictions
become the presumed method of release, and
release under a ‘ten percent deposit’ system
which bypasses the bondsman. Under the latter
method ten percent of the amount of an appearance
bond. is deposited ‘with the court and such is
thereafter returned (or ninety percent thereof)
upon the jperformancee of the conditions of the
release (p. 605).
In Hansen’s scenario, the court essentially acts as the

bondsman, and according to Hansen, this system of bail

37

would eliminate discrimination based on a person’s indigent
status. On this continuum of bond arrangements, however,
there is no middle ground. Thus, a felon with three prior
convictions would either be released on a personal
recognizance bond or would be granted a ten percent bond
(purportedly of some relatively high amount). This creates
the potential for the financial conflict of interest in the
court alluded to earlier, where the court essentially
expresses its willingness to accept the ten percent amount
as “paid in full” in the event the defendant does not
appear for future court hearings.

One solution noted by Drimmer (1996) includes the
possibility of divesting bounty hunters of their broad
powers altogether: “...the states and the federal
government could completely divest bounty hunters of their
broad powers” (p. 776). In doing so, bounty hunters would
only have the same rights as private citizens in searching
for and recovering suspects. This would necessitate,
however, that bondsman could only recoup their bonds by
filing civil lawsuits, so there would be no point in hiring
a bounty hunter.

It may be worthy to note here once again that the
divestiture of bounty hunter powers impacts not just bail

bonding, but the criminal justice system as a whole. As

38

Toborg (1983) notes:
In return for courts’ actions to assure their
profitability, bondsmen have written bond for
defendants who might otherwise have been
detained, helped the criminal justice system to
maintain social control over released defendants
prior to trial and assisted the court in locating
defendants who failed to appear and returning
them for trial (p. 155-56).
However, Drimmer (1996) acknowledges that completely
divesting bounty hunters of their powers is not feasible.
Instead, he proposes a compromise that would allow bounty
hunters to continue to play an important role in the
criminal justice system, but would serve to limit the
incidents of apparently indiscriminate violence that are
perceived to be perpetrated on the public by bounty
hunters:
Based on the importance of bondsmen and bounty
hunters to the criminal justice system, and the
dangers inherent, in Ibounty' hunting, bounty
hunters should be afforded many of the broad
rights of search and arrest enjoyed. by’ police

officers, beyond those (ME private citizens. .At

39

the same time, in allowing bounty hunters to

assume a greater role in the criminal justice

system, states and. the federal government must
move to limit the increasingly frequent
nationwide violence that bounty hunters inflict

on the public at large (p. 777).

Ultimately, however, Drimmer returns to the argument
made by Hansen (1981)-~that bounty hunters are indeed
agents of the state, and as such, should be subjected to
the same restrictions as other agents of the state,
including police officers.

While Drimmer and Hansen have called for stricter
regulations on bounty hunters, Reynolds (1994), perhaps
prophetically, proposed expanding the role of private
bounty hunters into public criminal justice domains. Among
the roles he proposed for bounty hunters were tracking down
suspects in federal cases involving terrorism and
kidnapping, routine involvement in unsolved cases such as
those portrayed on the television program “Unsolved
Mysteries”, involvement in organizations such as “Crime
Stoppers”, where public funds would be used to pay bounty
hunters to apprehend criminals and recover stolen property,
and using the bail bond system in lieu of probation and

parole.

40

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Each of the “solutions” to the “problem” of bounty
hunters acknowledges their symbiotic relationship to the
criminal justice system. What is not acknowledged,
however, is whether the “problem” of the bounty hunter is
rooted in fact or fiction, and whether the problem is one
of perception or reality. While researchers generally
agree that the function of bail bonding is an important one
and would not likely continue if bondsmen could not recover
fugitives, there is a lack of agreement about what to do
about perceived bounty hunter misconduct. Our lack of
knowledge about who bounty hunters are and what they do
impairs our understanding of this issue and others.
Further, it leaves little room for the creation of new
paradigms that might maximize the contributions bounty

hunters make to the criminal justice system.

41

CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Because there has been virtually no systematic inquiry
into who bounty hunters are or how they go about doing
their work, much of what we know about them comes from
purely anecdotal accounts. One theory that is helpful in
systematically understanding the circumstances of fugitive
recovery is constructivism. As Merriam and Cafarella
(1999) note, constructivism is a learning process that
people use to make sense of their experience. Further,
they note that this process of making meaning exists on
both an individual level and a social level.

Bounty hunters use a constructivist approach in their
work that allows them to construct the meaning of relevant
factors in any given situation, and accordingly, make
assessments about how important they are and how to apply
them. In essence, they construct knowledge about a situa-
tion that allows them to know how to proceed. Phillip
Candy (1991) speaks to this issue of knowledge construction
in relation to adult learning, which tends to be self—
directed:

The constructivist view of learning is

particularly compatible with the notion of self-

direction, since it emphasizes the combined

42

characteristics (n3 active inquiry, independence,

and individuality in a learning task (p. 278). i
It is of note that these three characteristics are present
not only in the process of learning the tasks associated
with bounty hunting (e.g., how to access public records or
how to conduct an interview), but are traits that charac-
terize bounty hunting as an occupation, as well (Burton,
1990).

Ormrod (2004) notes that the process of acquiring,
organizing, and synthesizing information may occur in
“unique, idiosyncratic ways” (p. 179-180). Further, the
process of constructing knowledge can be highly individual—
ized. Thus, a learner actively constructs information to
create an individual reality, and does not simply “absorb”
information passively. Ormrod (2004) further notes that
constructivist learning is contextual, and as such, is
“influenced by the physical and social contexts in which
people are immersed” (p. 181).

Not only is constructivist learning context-dependent,
it is also related to two specific types of knowledge—
declarative and procedural. We possess declarative
knowledge about we remember from previous experiences, and
also possess procedural knowledge about how to do things.

This procedural knowledge is functional in that it allows

43

us to know how to respond in particular circumstances
(Ormand, 2004: 203).

It is not surprising then, that constructivist
learning dominates the process by which bounty hunters come
to learn what to do and how to do it. Because construc-
tivist learning is dynamic, it is also not surprising that
bounty hunters rely more heavily on constructivist learning
than formal training as they gain experience in their work.
Jeff said this in an interview after he was asked if he
used to do things more “by the book” earlier in his bounty
hunting career:

Oh, gosh. yes. Everyone does. Ybu know, the

whole focus of the [training] institute is on

doing things correctly, trying to limit your
criminal and civil liability. So of course when

I got done there I thought, ‘This is the correct

way to do it’. But after awhile you learn that

really what they are teaching you are guidelines,

not really rules, because the rules change

depending on the circumstances. So you take a

look around and see what is going on and decide

from there what to do. It’s not like you can
just go into it with a playbook and expect you

have the power to run a play. It’s more like a

quarterback having a play he thinks he is going

to run when he breaks from the huddle, but when

he comes up to the line he sees a particular
defense and decides to call an audible at the
last minute instead.

Schon (1983) describes the knowledge that comes with
this type of experience as practice knowledge, knowledge
that Merriam and Cafarella (1999) refer to as the
cornerstone of reflective practice. They argue that
“Reflective practice allows one to make judgments in
complex and murky situations—judgments based on experience
and prior knowledge” (p. 232). I can think of few other
occupations where the requisite skill of making judgments
in “complex and murky situations” is any more essential
than it is in bounty hunting.

In addition to the practice of reflection, bounty
hunters also appear to construct what Ormrod (2004) refers
to as “schemas” or “scripts” (p. 279). These schemas
consist of related concepts or ideas that provide informa-
tion about a particular object or event. She further notes
that these schemas “...influence what information is

‘learned’ from a given instance of that event” (p. 279).

45

This phenomenon is expressed in the words of Jamie as he

explained how he uses bits and pieces of information to

assess the level of dangerousness of a given situation:
Well, there are lots of cues to let you know how
to proceed. But you can't make the mistake of
letting a previous experience blind you to what
could happen. It’s really about putting the
factors into an equation. A plus B, plus C
equals D. Like, is it a violent offense he is
wanted on, does he have a history of being armed,
what’s at stake for him going to jail, and things
like that. If none of these things are there,
well, it may be that the risk is lower. But
suppose you locate him in a bar, surrounded by
friends, and they are all drunk. Well, that
alone changes everything. Now I have to put
together“ a plan for how to grab him up that
wasn’t part of my original idea when I was
planning to get him at home when he was asleep.
And maybe I will still do that-wait until he goes
home an goes to sleep—but it still requires me to
re—evaluate the situation based on where I found
him. You have to be able to add up the factors

in a hurry, and in this business they are always

46

changing. I try to control them as much as I

can, but you just never know until you’re in it.

The process of constructivist learning embedded in
Jamie’s experience compliments and is embodied in the basic
tenets of symbolic interactionism. Specifically, the ways
in which bounty hunters come to know what to do is a
function of the meanings they attach to the people and
events around them. In addition, like the process of
constructing knowledge, the process of assigning meanings
is a dynamic one; the meanings we assign are influenced by
how others act toward us. Further, both knowledge
construction and symbolic interactionism are rooted in the
process of attaching meaning to situations, others and
things. As discussed earlier in this chapter, this study
attempts to examine how bounty hunters identify the factors
that affect their decision-making in their immediate
environments—i.e., the nature of the offense and where the
fugitive had bonded out to. It is also a study of how they
make meaning of these factors in the context of a recovery.

Both constructivism as a theoretical framework and
symbolic interactionism as a research framework are
embodied in the phenomenological approach. The phenomen-
ologist is interested in gathering descriptive data about

the nature of social life. As Herman (1994) notes, “...the

47

[phenomenological] researcher interprets the world from the
subjective perspectives of the subjects under examination”
(p. 91). This approach lends itself particularly well to
qualitative research. This is not to say, however, that
quantitative research is not interpretive, for it is. Like
qualitative research, quantitative research is also guided
by a set of beliefs about the world and how it should be
viewed.

Symbolic interactionism places primary importance on
the meanings people attach to the world around them
(Blumer, 1969; Martindale, 1960; Petras and Meltzer, 1994;
Taylor and Bogdon, 1984; Turner, 1978;). Blumer (1969)
identifies three basic premises upon which symbolic
interactionism resides. The first is that people act
toward people and events on the basis of the meanings these
things have for them. The second premise is that the
process of assigning meanings is a dynamic one; that the
meanings we assign are influenced by how others act toward
us. The third premise of symbolic interactionism is that
the process of attaching meaning to situations, others and
things is a function of our interpretation of them. For
Blumer, organizations and cultures are made up of people
who are involved in a constant state of interpreting the

world around them. As Taylor and Bogdon (1984) point out,

48

people may act within an organization or culture, but it is
their interpretations and definitions of the situation that
determines their actions. Blumer (1969) argues that
behavior does not have clear causes and that the kinds of
factors affecting one’s definition of a situation are of
one’s own choosing and thus are not subject to causal
analysis. Thus, Blumer advocates for an inductive,
exploratory approach to study the empirical world. This
approach is consistent with constructivist principles.

The basic premises of Blumer’s symbolic interactionism
provide an appropriate research framework for the de-
velopment of a deeper understanding of the conduct of
bounty hunters. Bounty hunters are always initially pre-
sented with a variety of “facts” and circumstances sur-
rounding the fugitive’s flight from the criminal justice
system; however, it is their interpretation of these facts
and circumstances that guides the process of the recovery.
For example, the facts and circumstances may include the
gender of the fugitive, the nature of the original offense
for which the fugitive was on bail, the fugitive’s past
criminal history, and a whole host of other considerations.
Or, as some bounty hunters lament, it may include only a
name and a phony address. How a bounty hunter goes about

the process of locating the fugitive and actually making

49

the recovery depends in large part on how these facts and
circumstances are interpreted. Take for example, the fol-
lowing circumstances surrounding a hypothetical bail
jumper: (1) the nature of the original offense is extremely
violent; (2) the fugitive has a history of assaultive
crimes; (3) the fugitive has stated in the past that he
will never return to prison, and (4) the fugitive was
originally bailed out by a friend. How these “facts” are
interpreted (in fact, which facts even get interpreted) by
the bail enforcement agent will guide the process he uses
in effecting a recovery. Indeed, many of these circum-
stances may be considered related to their decision as to
whether they will even take the case. While it is likely
that these facts and circumstances will be interpreted
differently by each bounty hunter, it is also likely that
there will be emergent themes that help bind together the
lived experiences of individual agents. Symbolic inter-
actionism provides a research framework within which these
themes can emerge and be understood. For example, consider
the following descriptions three different bounty hunters
gave in their interviews with me as they recounted how they
decide whether to let a fugitive know they were after them,
and the mechanism they use to convey that information.

Toby (black male with less than five years of experience):

50

The whole idea is to keep one step ahead, knowing
that you are one step behind to begin with. It
[locating the fugitive] involves anticipation—
where they could be, who they are with, what they
are doing. Now, if it’s somebody I know, like
someone I picked up before, maybe I have some
sort of relationship with them from before. And
depending on how things went before, I might just
go up right to his girlfriend’s house or maybe
his parents’ house and say, hey, you seen Jamal?
Especially if they know I treated them right the
last time and I haven’t got nothin’ against him
personally, then, yeah, I will let them know I am
looking for him, and leave a card telling them to
let him know so we can work something out. But
if I don’t know him that well and haven’t had any
previous contact with his people, then no, I’m
not going to just march on up to the door and
introduce myself. I am going to do a lot more
research before I reveal my cards to anyone who I
think might tip him off. And in a case like
that, where I don’t know the people involved, I
can’t anticipate as much. So then I have to

assume the worst and prepare accordingly.

51

Ellen (Hispanic [Mexican] female with more than ten

years experience):

I am a better conversationalist. I can usually
get anyone to tell me anything I want. Sometimes
I plead, sometimes I use a pretext. This works

good for me because people are more suspicious of

men. Anytime a man takes the lead, people are
more apprehensive. I don’t get too much
information using the phone. The anonymity of

the phone makes it easier to hang up and not
cooperateu So that means I have to talk to
people to get information, so I risk that someone

will tip the rabbit [fugitive] that I am after

them. As for when I talk to people, that
depends . Sometimes it is late in the chase and
other times early. Mostly it depends on my

relationship to the rabbit and his family or
friends. If we’ve had a relationship in the
past, well the, yes, I might go right into
conversation with people—assuming it was a good
relationship. But if it was bad last time—like
he wouldn’t listen to reason and tried every

which way to run—well then, no, I’m not going to

52

let anyone know I’m on his tail until I am ready
to trap the rabbit.

Sonny (white male with five to ten years of experience):
There is no hard and fast rule about when to let
him [fugitive] know you are after IUhL But you
gotta rely on your experiences to tell you what
the right thing to do iAL You definitely don’t
want to let him know if you’re pretty sure it
will spook him into actively hiding. 1% lot of
people think that these guys take off and go into
hiding. Not so. In fact, as I always say,
people change but their patterns don’t. So if
they frequent titty bars when they aren’t on the
run, they will do it when they are. And if they
drink too much, they will drink too much when
they’re on the IIHL So just knowing things like
that will help to know where to look, even if it
isn’t in their old neighborhood. But unless I
know the guy and have some decent history with
him, I’m probably not going to let him know I am
after him. Partly that’s for safety, but mostly
because I think it drives them further
underground, at least for awhile. Now someone I

know or dealt with before, sure, I will usually

53

go to his family and try to convince them that
all ‘round it’s better that he turn himself in
and I don’t want him to get hurt by someone else
who might be looking for him on some deal who
doesn’t know, him and doesn’t care about him,
either. So then getting the family or the
girlfriend to understand that I just want what’s
best for the guy is an important part of getting
them to cooperate. In the end, I guess it all
comes down to trust.
Clearly the emergent theme that ties together each
of these accounts is how important the bounty hunter’s
history with the fugitive is in helping to construct a plan
for how to effect the recovery. Specifically, this history
helps the bounty hunter to develop a strategy for when to
put the fugitive “on notice” that he is being sought, and
when not to. By understanding the meaning the bounty
hunters attach to this history, we are better able to
understand the context in which their work occurs. This
approach appears to be especially well-suited for studying
small groups of people. As Marshall and Rossman (1999)
point out:

The phenomenological genre tends to focus on the

54

experiences of a few individuals to explore in
detail, and, often, over time, their deeply held
understanding of some facet of their lives (p.
63).
Thus, phenomenology provides a useful context for the
application of the principles embedded in constructiv-

ism and symbolic interactionism.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter outlines a theoretical framework of
constructivism and a research framework of symbolic
interactionism which are embedded in the phenomenological
approach. These frameworks provide a context for under-
standing the process bounty hunters use to construct
knowledge from their experience, and form schemas that
guide their behavior. They also help us to understand how
this knowledge is systematically applied as bounty hunters
identify relevant factors and apply them in their work

environment.

55

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This exploratory study was designed to (1) identify
the personal backgrounds and work experiences of bounty
hunters; (2) identify the process by which they identify
and employ situational factors in effecting a fugitive
recovery, and (3) assess their views and perspectives
regarding the role of licensing and regulation on their
occupation. The current study and its conclusions are
constructed from data that was gathered using survey
questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and fieldwork.
This triangulation of methods is useful for shedding new
light on questions and for overcoming the bias that comes
from single-method studies (Denzin, 1983). It is an
especially effective way to reconcile the use of quali-
tative and quantitative data within the same study (Patton,
2002). Further, I argue it is a particularly effective
method for both gathering and analyzing data in studies
that are exploratory in nature.

Research Techniques

 

Once dominated by techniques borrowed from the experi-
mental sciences, social sciences now present an array of
research methods ranging from ethnomethodology to socio-

linguistics to symbolic interactionism and postmodernist

56

discourse (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). However, despite a
surge in qualitative works over the past three decades,
there remains a decided imbalance in the literature on re-
search methods, with quantitative methods dominating re-
search strategies, as well as perspectives on what con—
stitutes “good science”. In short, quantitative research
continues to garner greater respect, perhaps in part be-
cause of the concomitant notion people have about its
ability to generate more “precise” conclusions about social
phenomena.

The debate about the legitimacy and validity of using
qualitative methods to study social phenomena has spawned
an “either-or” mentality about the utility of various
research methods. Certainly quantitative approaches have
“quantities” as their fundamental emphasis. On the other
hand, qualitative approaches focus on the “essence and
ambience” of social phenomena (Berg, 2001:3). The noted
sociologist Albert Reiss (1968) may have summed up this
debate best when he said:

There appear to be two camps in sociology that

have a long history of mutual suspicion and

disrespect. The ‘hard heads', the men who would
measure, say with Lord Kelvin: ‘If you cannot

measure, your knowledge is meager' and

57

unsatisfactory.’ The ‘soft heads’, scorning the

precise for insight and the ‘sociological

imagination’, would send men out into the real
world. They are ‘live’ sociologists ‘living’

sociology (p. 351).

In identifying this methodological dilemma as
“unnecessary”8, Reiss argues that the two approaches are
inextricably linked and that polarization of the method—
ologies limits social inquiry. Thus, establishing simple
quantities without meaningful interpretationwould be as
vacuous an endeavor as simply offering meanings for
individual experiences without concerning oneself with the
number of other individuals who may have experienced the
same phenomenon. Stebbins (2001) argues that meaningful
interpretation of statistical data and the augmentation of
qualitative data with descriptive statistics are equally
valuable and necessary processes. This has particular
import for exploratory research, since by its very

definition it involves investigation. At its best,

exploratory research involves the systematic discovery,

 

8For more on the quantitative-qualitative debate, see H.S.
Becker’s Doing Things Together (1986), J. Johnson’s
Research Design and Research Strategies (1998), and C.
Seale’s The Quality of Qualitative Research (1999).

58

examination, and analysis of social and cultural phenomena.
(Patton, 2002). It is not simply a synonym for qualitative
research because, as noted above, qualitative elements are
found in most kinds of research. Exploratory research is a
very distinct form of discovery that is at once both a
process and a goal. Or, as Johnson (1998) notes,
“Exploratory research can be the primary focus of a given
design or just one of many components” (p. 139). Perhaps
the most comprehensive definition of exploratory research
is provided by Stebbins (2001):
Social science exploration is a broad-ranging,
purposive, systematic, prearranged undertaking
designed to maximize the discovery of
generalizations leading to description and
understanding of an area of social or
psychological life. Such taken, a distinctive
way of conducting science—a scientific process—a
special methodological approach (as contrasted
with confirmation), and a pervasive personal
orientation of the explorer. The emergent
generalizations are many and varied; they include
the descriptive facts, folk concepts, cultural

artifacts, structural arrangements, social

59

processes and beliefs and belief systems normally

found there (p. 3).

As Stebbins (2001) further notes, this definition,
while broad enough to apply to all of science, offers
significant insight into the role of exploration as an
important scientific process. As Marshall and Rossman
(1999) note, the purpose of exploratory research is to
investigate little-known phenomena, to identify or discover
significant categories of meaning, and to generate
hypotheses for future research (p. 33). It is these unique
strengths of the qualitative genre that promote and bolster
exploratory research and provide a strategic frame-work for
understanding the lives individuals live. The work lives
of bounty hunters are exceptionally well-suited for such
exploration, not just because little is known about their
experiences, but also because they operate in richly
diverse environments, often alone. The work they do and
the meaning they construct about the people and events that
guide their work are essentially unknown not only to
researchers, but often to other bounty hunters as well.

Denizen and Lincoln (2000) argue that while the
practice of qualitative research is by its nature creative

and interpretive, it nevertheless proceeds in a systematic

6O

manner. In this study, this process began with considera-
tions related to obtaining a sample.

Research Sample

 

Because the focus of the phenomenological genre is on
the individually lived experiences of participants, it has
implications for the size of the sample. Specifically,
Patton (2002) argues that this genre is almost always
dominated by a quest for “depth versus breadth” (p. 227).
Further, he argues that this requires careful consideration
of whether one wishes to examine a narrow range of
experiences for a larger number of people, or whether one
wishes to examine a broader range of experiences for a
smaller number of people (p. 227). This research involves
the latter design.

The primary source of data for this study was a sample
of 147 people, all of whom were active in bounty hunting
during the calendar year of 2003. As previously noted,
gaining access to these people provided some unique
challenges due to the nature of the work they do and their
reliance on secrecy in doing it. My goal was to obtain as
diverse a sample as possible, not with the goal of general-
izing to all bounty hunters, but with a goal of informing
our understanding about this group of people about whom so

little is known. Preliminary access to one population of

61

bounty hunters-all of whom belonged to a national organi-
zation of bounty hunters—was initially obtained two years
prior, during the proposal writing stage of the
dissertation. However, between the time the proposal was
written and data collection began, the association leader-
ship withdrew its support for the project and denied access
, to its members. Thus, data collection was begun using net-
work sampling because, as Singleton and Straits (1999)
point out, this method has particular utility for identi-
fying members of the target population who are unknown to
the researcher. In an attempt to identify bounty hunters
who might participate in the study, I made a request to the
Executive Committee of the Michigan Council of Private
Investigators (MCPI) to announce to their list-serve
members that this study was being conducted, and that I
sought to be contacted by anyone who had engaged in bail
enforcement activity during 2003. This announcement
resulted in my being contacted by eleven people via e—mail
and one person via telephone. In responding to the
inquiries via e-mail and during the telephone conversation,
I invited each prospective participant to participate in
the research by completing a survey questionnaire.

As noted previously, there were no national or state

government registries that contained the names and

62

addresses of bounty hunters. This necessitated soliciting
the cooperation of associations to which bounty hunters
belong. Having had support for the study withdrawn by one
association, I sought out the cooperation of others, two of
which agreed to support the research. These two associa-
tions were the Professional Bail Agents of the United
States (PBUS) and the National Enforcement Agency (NEA).
Contact was made with the Executive Board of PBUS, and they
granted my request to use the association as a conduit for
access to their membership. The Executive Board of PBUS
assisted me by introducing me to members attending the PBUS
bi—annual membership meeting. Every PBUS member attending
the opening session of the bi—annual meeting was given a
brief introduction to the nature of the research and was
provided with the opportunity to participate in the study.
A member of the PBUS Executive Board expressed to the mem-
bers his support for the research, and encouraged members
to participate in the research.

Association members of the National Enforcement Agency
(NEA) were identified from the NEA membership list provided
by the Director of the agency. While these two membership
associations provided access to groups of bounty hunters
that were otherwise relatively inaccessible, this type of

“convenience” sampling had its drawbacks. Chief among

63

them, perhaps, was that it constituted a “catch-as-catch—
can” (Singleton and Straits, 1999:158) approach to securing
participants. That is, the method relied on the
participation of subjects who were “readily available”,
thereby limiting the extent to which the results could be
generalized to a larger population. However, the focus of
this study was on exploring the “lifeworld” (Denizen,
1983:134) of bail agents as they operate as private
entrepreneurs in a public criminal justice system, not on
establishing statistical probabilities, nor generalizing to
a larger population. Another limitation to this type of
sampling was that members of the sample were, in large
part, derived from membership lists from two professional
associations. Therefore, one could argue that there was a
qualitative difference between these bounty hunters and
those who did not belong to such associations. This may
have had the effect of skewing our understanding of who
bounty hunters are, the methods by which they effect a
successful recovery, and their attitudes about licensing
and regulation. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
without the cooperation of these two associations, this
study would not have been possible.

Another sampling method utilized in this study was the

use of snowball sampling. Also known as chain sampling

64

(Patton, 2002; Singleton and Straits, 1999), this method
identifies prospective participants from sampling people
who know others who may be appropriate for the study. As
Singleton and Straits (1999) note, this is often a good
method to use with target populations who know each other,
whose activities are clandestine, and whose characteristics
are unknown. This method of sampling was facilitated
through both verbal and written contact with participants,
and also through the use of the survey questionnaire
(Appendix D). For example, upon completion of the
questionnaire, participants were asked at the end to
provide the names and addresses of any other bounty hunters
they knew so that they could also be sent a survey packet.
These three sampling methods-network, convenience, and

snowball—all utilized the same techniques.

DATA COLLECTION
Survey Questionnaires
Because my interest was in gathering comprehensive
data-that is, information regarding demographic data,
employment histories, types and amounts of education and
training, and attitudes about licensing and regulation-I
chose surveys as the most efficient method of gathering

this data from the largest number of participants. The

65

survey data was collected between January and June, 2004.
Using Likert-type scales and open—ended questions, partici-
pants were queried about their work experiences, including
those not related to bounty hunting, as well as their
attitudes about whether licensing and/or regulation should
be required of those working in the occupation. Subjects
were also asked to rate a number of factors on their
importance in facilitating a successful recovery. Accom-
panying each of the survey questionnaires was a cover
letter explaining the nature of the research (Appendix E),
and a consent form (Appendix F), wherein the participant
could indicate a willingness to participate in a in a face-
to-face or telephone interview, and/or allow me to
accompany the participant into the field and/or take
photographs.

Although time did not allow for PBUS members to
complete the survey at the time of the distribution, those
members who agreed to participate were given a survey
packet that contained a survey questionnaire, a cover
letter explaining the nature of the research, a consent
form, and a self-addressed envelope so that completed
surveys and consent forms could be returned to me.

Each member on the NEA list was sent a survey packet

with the same questionnaire, cover letter and consent form

as those provided to the PBUS members. Those survey
packets, however, also contained a cover letter of intro-
duction and support from the Director of the NEA, en-
couraging them to participate (Appendix G).

Those subjects referred through network and snowball
sampling also received a survey questionnaire, cover
letter, and consent form. The number of surveys in these
two categories totaled nineteen. Participants from all
response categories were given thirty days within which to
return the questionnaire. If the completed questionnaire
was not returned during that time, a follow-up letter
(Appendix H) was sent reminding them to complete and return
the survey. It was not possible to identify PBUS members
for follow-up since they were provided their survey packets
in a face—to-face meeting. In all, 806 follow-up letters
were sent, resulting in only 22 additional completed
surveys being returned.

Survey Response Rates

 

A total of 1,010 survey packets were provided to
prospective participants. The response rates of each of
the four categories of respondents-PBUS members, NEA
members, network referrals, and snowball sampling
referrals—are shown in Table 1. The table also contains

data on the percentage of questionnaires mailed out and

67

returned for each response category. It should be noted
here that there were a total of 116 mailed questionnaires
that were returned as undeliverable from all four
categories of respondents. This left a total of 994
potential participants.

Eighty-five surveys were distributed to PBUS members,
of which 12 (14%) were returned. Eight hundred and eighty
one survey packets were mailed to NEA members. Of these
surveys, 113 (13%) were returned completed.

Survey packets mailed to prospective participants via
network sampling totaled 12. Of those 12, 10 (83%) were
completed and returned. Of the sixteen subjects identified
and surveyed through snowball sampling, twelve (75%)

returned completed questionnaires.

Table 1. Nunbor of Questionnaires Mailed Out and Returned, and
Response Rate: for Each Group Included in the Survey

 

 

Category of Total Total Number Overall

Respondent Surveys of Responses Response Rate
(N=994) (N=147) (15%)

PBUS Member 85 12 14

NEA Member 881 113 13

Network Referral 12 10 83

Snowball Referral 16 12 75

 

Not surprisingly, the response rate varied con-

siderably depending on the category of the respondent.

68

For instance, the response rate for those referred via
snowball sampling was 75%, while for NEA members it was
much lower (13%). The rate for NEA members was slightly
lower than that of PBUS members (14%). Both NEA members
and PBUS members had much lower rates of response than did
those participants obtained through network and snowball
sampling (83% and 75% respectively).

The disparity in these response rates warrants brief
comment. The differences may be attributable to three
factors. First, by and large, PBUS members are first and
foremost bail bondsmen, so many of them do not participate
in the recovery of their own “skips”. Instead, they hire
out the work of finding a skip to bounty hunters with whom
they contract on a regular basis for such service. Thus,
they may feel they have less invested in research that
focuses so directly on recovery activities. However, the
fact that I made a request for their participation in a
face-to—face meeting may have increased their participation
rates somewhat. Second, NEA members are, by definition and
training, bail enforcement agents. Although many of them
may engage in other forms of employment in addition to
their bounty hunting activities, they frequently consider
themselves to be part of a larger fraternity whose

commitment to bounty hunting is tied to the training and

69

certification they received from the NEA. Thus, even
though my initial contact with them through the mail was
more impersonal, the percentage who responded to the survey
nearly mirrored that of PBUS members. Third, those
respondents referred via network sampling also had
generally higher response rates (75%) than did respondents
selected via their association membership. Like PBUS
members, this group had a more personalized invitation to
participate via the e-mail or telephone correspondence they
had with me prior to receiving a survey. Similarly, the
respondents obtained from network and snowball sampling
were people who, in effect, constituted a “personalized”
referral from a colleague to participate in the research.
It was, for example, frequently the case that one partici-
pant would convey to me that they had called another pro-
spective participant to ask them if they would be interest-
ed in participating. This has particular meaning among the
members of this occupation, as revealing the identity of
another agent is generally unacceptable practice without
the permission of the agent.

It is also worth noting here some factors that may
have contributed to the overall low survey response rates.
As noted previously, bounty hunters are members of an

occupational group about whom very little is known. This

70

is not surprising given the lack of a national registry,
virtually non-existent licensure and/or certification
standards, and the clandestine nature of their activities.
Because of the nature of their jobs, bounty hunters are
required to “operate under the radar” of those they seek
and frequently, of other actors in the criminal justice
system. While their work requires a curiosity about people
and their actions, with the exception of the actual
recovery, much of the process of satisfying this curiosity
occurs at a distance from the fugitive himself. Their
approach to their work goes beyond mere surveillance, and
involves securing information on a number of different
levels from a variety of sources. They gather information,
not give it, and they watch and listen from afar, prefer-
ring to observe without being noticed. They are the
seekers, not the sought. As a result, they value their
anonymity in much the same way that an undercover narcotics
police officer might. This anonymity is protected, in
part, by revealing the tricks of the trade very cautiously
and selectively. So, even when such revelation might
broadly advance their own cause, they may be reluctant to
share the information they identify as being so critical to
their anonymity and so important to the overall success of

their jobs. As Ben explained,

71

Look, I work alone. I always have. I don’t like
sharing information with others because you never
know who they associate vdjjn I mean, you might
be talking to a cop about a guy on the run and
the next thing you find out, he’s the guy’s
second cousin. But there are ea lot of
misconceptions about us and the work we do, so
anything I can do to help you put the word out
about those of us who act like professionals, I
will do.

Interviews

 

In her work on interactionist research methods, Herman
(1994) points out that sociologists use many different
methods to construct an overall research strategy and to
collect data. One of these strategies—the interview—is
identified by Herman and many others as beneficial when
used in conjunction with other data-collection techniques
(see Kvale, 1996; Lofland and Lofland, 1995; Marshall and
Rossman, 1999; Symon and Cassell, 1998). A wide variety of
interview structures has been identified in the litera-
ture; however three structures appear to dominate. Although
all the designs are used to collect data using open-ended
questions, “...they differ in the extent to which the

interview questions are determined and standardized before

72

the interview occurs” (Patton, 2002:342). Thus, it is
helpful to think of these interview designs as being on a
continuum of pre-determination and standardization.

At one end of the continuum is the informal conver—
sational interview. Commonly referred to as the unstruc—
tured or unstandardized interview, this interview design is
the most open-ended approach and does not include pre-
determined sets of questions (Becker and Greer, 1970;
Herman, 1994; Patton, 2002). As Herman (1994) points out,
this type of interview requires that “...the interviewers
must in situ develop, alter, and generate questions during
the interview” (p. 99). Becker and Greer (1970) also note
that this type of interview allows the researcher to pursue
interesting leads, and to generate “new hypotheses...during
the course of the interview” (p. 133). This structure
offers the researcher in the field a good deal of
flexibility to pursue information because she can move in
whatever direction appears to be appropriate given the
events and behaviors occurring at any give moment in the
social setting. It also allows the researcher to
spontaneously pursue new information as it is generated
either by behavior and events, or by responses to previous
questions. In addition, responses previously given can be

explored in greater depth, and questions can be tailored to

73

the individual. This interview structure allows for eluci—
dation and elaboration of events, behaviors, and
“rationales” for action, so is particularly well—suited for
studying those populations about which little is known. It
also has particular application for research that is
designed to study people (such as bounty hunters) who are
being observed in the process of constructing their reality
and defining their situations.

Despite all of the benefits of this method, using the
informal, unstructured interview has some distinct dis-
advantages. Perhaps foremost among them is the difficulty
this method presents for organizing and analyzing data from
the interviews. Different questions generate different
responses, and this requires that the researcher spend a
great deal of time sifting through both the questions and
the answers to find emergent patterns or themes in the
data. Another disadvantage is that this interview format
may lead to greater interviewer bias and interpretation,
leaving the interview more vulnerable to interviewer
effects (Patton, 2002).

At the other end of the continuum is the structured or
standardized interview. While still remaining open-ended,
this approach requires careful consideration and construc-

tion of all of the questions before the interview. The

74

questions are designed to be all-encompassing and compre-
hensive so as to elicit all relevant data (Herman, 1994).
Each interviewee is asked the same questions in the same
way (Patton, 2002). In essence, the researcher will
collect the same amount of related content for every
participant.

In between the two extremes on the continuum is the
semi-standardized interview, sometimes referred to as the
focused interview (Herman, 1994), or the interview guide
(Patton, 2002; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). This kind of
interview may involve asking a number of pre-determined
questions in a specific order, but also allows the inter-
viewer to explore responses and other topics quite freely.
Or, it may involve constructing general subject areas,
within which the interviewer is free to explore with the
participant to illuminate the particular subject. Thus,
much like the conversational interview, the interview guide
allows the researcher the flexibility to establish and
maintain conversation with the participant, but generally
delimits in advance the subjects to be explored.

Despite their differences-or maybe because of them—
these interview designs all have specific advantages for
the researcher. These designs can be combined to

capitalize on these advantages. For example, the interview

75

guide approach can be combined with a standardized format
by specifying specific key questions exactly as they must
be asked, and leaving the rest of the questions to be
explored in an unstructured format. For this study on
bounty hunters, specific questions were constructed in an
interview guide (Appendix I) in an attempt to gain an
understanding of their entry into the field, as well as
their backgrounds, including educational and occupational
histories. Overall, general areas of inquiry were pre—
determined; however, I was still free to explore a myriad
of topics in depth as they presented themselves in the
social setting. This had the advantage of “...providing
greater salience and relevance to the questions” (Patton
2002:349).

The utility of this approach is demonstrated in
several situations that occurred during different inter—
views. For example, while interviewing Ben, a bounty
hunter from the Northeast, I asked him a question from the
inter-view guide about his perception of how dangerous he
thought his work was overall. In answering the question,
he not only explained his beliefs about the overall danger
of bail enforcement, but went on to explain in rich detail
how the level of danger changes according to how the

recovery effort proceeds, the factors that are involved in

76

precipitating the changes, and the rationale he uses for

determining how to respond to the perceived changes. He

explained it this way:
Look, you can plan all you want. In fact, you
have to plan. My ability to determine what level
of threat exists is based on a lot of factors,
but the reality of it is, you just never know.
It’s always a gamble, and a serious one with
potentially deadly consequences. Tum; might have
a guy with a pretty minor offense-maybe even
someone you got before. And there have been no
problems, none at all. But on that given day,
with things going on in his life you don’t know
about, all of a sudden he decides to go off. And
you just happen to be at that place at that
moment. You don’t know what triggers it. Maybe
he don’t even know. So now I can see he's
agitated, not like last time, and I shift into
high alert. I may have to get authoritative with
him, (maybe like a counselor and sympathize with
him. Anything to calm him down. I do whatever
it takes at that moment to get the job done with
the least amount of trouble for everyone.

In another interview, a respondent from the

77

Midwest (Bud) was asked about his level of agreement with
the statement that bail enforcement agents play an
important part in the criminal justice system. While he
had answered “Agree” in his survey, he clearly had some
strong opinions about this issue that were elucidated in
the interview. For example, he responded,
Hell, yes! Do you really think that law
enforcement has the time or resources to track
down the half million people who’ve skipped bail
here in just our state? I mean, we put our lives
on the line to go to get these guys—and some
'women, too—and we don’t cost the taxpayers a red
cent. In fact, we save them money because lots
of people don’t even know that when someone posts
ten percent of a bond then don’t show up in
court, that money comes out of a state fund. So
we are performing a service for taxpayers not
just from a justice perspective, but from a
financial perspective, too. A lot of people
don’t know that.
His response to that single question then allowed me to

pursue a line of questioning related to the various

78

financial arrangements for bonds that exist in various
states. This might not have been otherwise possible
without utilizing the interview format.
Interview Response Rates

Of the 147 respondents who completed and returned
survey questionnaires, 86 respondents initially agreed to
participate in an interview; however, despite repeated
attempts, contact could only be made with 71 of them in
order to complete an actual interview. The response rates
for survey respondents who eventually participated in an
interview are presented in Table 2. It should be noted
that due to the relatively small number of respondents who
agreed to participate and could be contacted for an
interview, an attempt was made to interview all of those
respondents who agreed to be interviewed. Further, the
respondents were geographically spread out across the
United States, thereby limiting the feasibility of
completing face-to-face interviews. Therefore, all but
three of the interviews were completed via telephone.

Of the 12 PBUS members who completed questionnaires, 3
of the respondents (25%) participated in an interview. Of
those 3 interviewees, only 1 (33%) gave his consent for me

to accompany him into the field.

79

Table 2. Number of Interview Participants by Each Survey Response
Group

 

 

Category of Total Total Number Overall
Survey Surveys Participating Response Rate
Respondent Returned in an Interview

(N=147) (N=71) (%)
PBUS Member 12 3 25
NEA Member 113 62 55
Network Referral 10 3 30
Snowball Referral 12 3 25

 

One hundred thirteen NEA members completed the
survey. Sixty-two (55%) of these respondents were
interviewed. Twenty-two NEA members (19%) also gave their
consent for me to accompany them into the field.

Of the 10 survey respondents obtained via network
sampling who completed the survey, 3 (30%) participated in
an interview. Only 1 (10%) agreed to allow me to accompany
him into the field.

Of the 12 survey respondents obtained via snowball
sampling who completed the survey, 3 (25%) participated in
an interview. None of these respondents agreed to allow me
to accompany them into the field.

Each of the respondents who participated in an
interview was asked permission to tape record it. Of the
71 completed interviews, 65 participants granted permission

for it to be tape recorded.

80

Participant Observation

Because this study focused on the behavior of bounty
hunters and their interpretation of their environments, the
combination of participant observation and semi—structured
interviews was an appropriate method. However, like any
research that focuses on a large group of people, these
methods-even though combined—fall short in their utility.
This is because of the impossibility of observing and/or
interviewing such a large group of people.

In light of the challenges in gaining access to dif-
ficult populations, Dillman (1978) suggests alternative
data collection methods that may be used by themselves or
in conjunction with other methods. Among these is
participant observation.

As noted previously, social scientists in general, and
symbolic interactionists in particular, use a variety of
research methods to gather data that frames an under-
standing of individually lived experience such as that of
bounty hunters. Included among these methods are inter-
viewing and fieldwork/participant observation (Denizen and
Lincoln, 2000; Herman, 1994; Kvale, 1996; Patton, 2002).
These methods are frequently accompanied by the use of mail
surveys, and such was the case here. While any and all of

these methods might be used to explore any given social

81

phenomenon, participant observation, in conjunction with
interviewing, is particularly well-suited for documenting
individuals’ definitions of situations and their con-
structions of reality (Berg, 2001; Blumer, 1969;
Herman, 1994; Janesick, 2000; Kvale, 1996; Lofland and
Lofland, 1995; Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Patton, 2002).
As both an overall research strategy and a data-gathering
method, participant observation has been well-documented in
the literature. It has particular import for the study of
bounty hunters because it, more than any other method,
allows the researcher to become immersed in the social
world within which these agents operate. Consistent with
the research goal of experiencing reality as bounty hunters
do, participant observation allows the researcher to see,
hear and otherwise experience the research setting in much
the way that the agent does. While it is acknowledged that
one person can never really experience the world in the
exact same way that another does, it is nevertheless
possible to develop systematically detailed accounts of the
everyday experiences of the participants.

Participant observation, as a research strategy,
refers to the process by which a researcher establishes and
maintains a multi-faceted, relatively long—term association

with others in a natural setting for the purpose of devel-

82

oping a comprehensive understanding of the events and
behaviors that occur in that setting (Herman, 1994:97;
Lofland and Lofland, 1995:18). It necessitates that the
researcher participate, to some degree, in the experiences
of those being observed. Of the many “roles” established
between the observer and the observed in participant
observation, the participant as observer is most applicable
for the study of bounty hunters as they effect a recovery.
While the unique features of the bounty hunter occupation
make it well-suited for participant observation, there are
other features that make access a challenge, including the
fact that the social world of the agents is fraught with
secrecy. Many states do not have specific oversight of
bounty hunters so gaining access to their numbers is dif-
ficult. Further, bounty hunters often operate in isolation
and rely on stealth and cunning in order to effect a
recovery. Their ability to recover a fugitive depends in
large part on that fact that they and their techniques are
not known. Gaining access to this population is difficult;
gaining access to their environment is even more so.

In the participant as observer role, the researcher’s
presence is known to the participants. This requires, of
course, that the researcher gain access to the participants

in an overt manner. Participants consent to the presence

83

of the researcher and with the researcher, negotiate a
mutual set of obligations that define their relationship
(Herman, 1994; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984).

The fieldwork in this study involved no role pretense
on my part in that the two agents were aware of my pres-
ence, and to a limited degree the purpose of the research.
The receptivity of both agents to my presence could be
described as welcoming, and both agents demonstrated a high
level of interest in “getting the real story out” about
bounty hunters. This may have served as the primary
motivation for both agents to allow me to accompany them
into the field. Although neither agent would allow
photographs to be taken (both expressing liability concerns
and concerns about their anonymity), each of them appeared
cooperative and anxious to share their opinions about their
work and the strategies and techniques they used to effect
a successful recovery. As Lee (1995) points out,
“...receptivity to the presence of a fieldworker is often
shaped by situational factors, as well as by a recognition
that some opportunistic advantage might be gained from the
research” (p. 16). For the two agents (Carlos and Hank) I
accompanied in this study, there was clearly a desire for
“accurate” information to be disseminated to the public by

a “credible” source.

84

In addition to being an overall design strategy, par-
ticipant observation is also a data-gathering method
(Bogdewicz, 1992; Dewalt, Dewalt, and Wayland, 1998;
Johnson, 1998; Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Patton, 2002;
Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). As a data-gathering method,
participant observation is guided by the research
question(s). For research involving bounty hunters, the
questions are (1) what are the personal backgrounds and
work experiences of bounty hunters? (2) what are the
situational factors they identify and employ in effecting a
fugitive recovery? and (3) what are their views and
perspectives regarding the licensing and regulation of
their occupation? The primary interest here was in
exploring who bounty hunters are, the ways in which they
come to define the “situation" of a recovery, and the
factors they use to guide their decision making in how to
actually go about making the recovery.

The use of the participant observation method involved
the systematic noting and recording of events and behaviors
in the field in which bounty hunters work. As noted by
Marshall and Rossman (1999) and others (see Bogdewicz,
1992; Lofland and Lofland, 1995; Whyte, 1997), a researcher
may record these events, behaviors and artifacts by using

field notes—systematic, detailed, concrete and non-

85

judgmental descriptions of what has been observed. (See
Appendix J for the note-taking guide used in recording
fieldwork data). Taylor and Bogdan (1984) also suggest that
that in addition to recording events, behaviors and
conversations, the observer should also record “hunches”
about those events and behaviors, and this was also done in
this study.

It should be noted here that there are many types of
notes taken during observation and in large part, those
considered “field notes” are not actually written in the
field. Instead, the term “field notes” more specifically
refers to the expanded account of events and behaviors that
were observed during a given observational period that are
written after returning from the field (Bogdewicz, 1992;
DeWalt, et. al, 1998). Thus, as Dewalt, et. a1 (1998) point
out, “field notes are simultaneously data and analysis—both
a record of observation and conversation, and a product
constructed by the researcher” (p. 271). This is the
process I used in recording my field data. This method
helped to maintain the epistemological integrity of this
body of qualitative research in that it reflected the
overall design strategy and is consistent with the theo-

retical framework of symbolic interactionism.

86

As previously noted, access to fieldwork was somewhat
difficult to obtain. However, 24 of the 147 survey respon-
dents agreed to allow me to accompany them into the field.
Of these respondents, two were selected for their willing-
ness to allow me to accompany them and because the timing
of their availability coincided with mine. In total, 33
hours were spent with these two agents-16 hours over two
days with one agent, and 17 hours over two days with the
other. While both agents were located in the Midwest, each
was located in a different state.

The use of participant observation in conducting the
fieldwork was designed to supplement questionnaires and
interviews, and provided valuable knowledge about who
bounty hunters are, what they do, and how they do it.
Combined with surveys and interviews, this method also
provided a logical and compelling connection between the
qualitative research genre and the overall research design
strategy.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter offers justification for using triangu-
lated data-gathering methods to examine who bounty hunters
are and what they do. Specifically, this chapter seeks to
elucidate the benefits of using both quantitative and

qualitative data to understand (1) what the personal

87

backgrounds and work experiences of bounty hunters are; (2)
the process by which they identify situational factors
relevant to a successful recovery, and (3) the views and
perspectives of bounty hunters regarding licensing and
regulation of their occupation. I have argued that the use
of survey questionnaires, semi—structured interviews, and
participant observation provide the contextual richness

that helps enlighten our views about these issues.

88

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of this study was threefold: first was to
identify the personal backgrounds and work experiences of
bounty hunters; second was to identify the process by which
they identify and employ situational factors in effecting a
fugitive recovery, and third was to assess their views and
perspectives regarding the licensing and regulation of
their occupation. The primary goal of the research was to
inform our knowledge about bounty hunters and the role they
play in the criminal justice system.

This chapter presents the data and findings for
identifying who bounty hunters are, the process by which
they identify and employ situational factors in effecting a
successful recovery, and what their opinions are regarding
licensing and regulation of their occupation. Both
quantitative and qualitative data are utilized in the

presentation of these findings.

WHO BOUNTY HUNTERS ARE
In an attempt to answer the question of who bounty
hunters are, the demographic characteristics of bounty

hunters were divided into two categories—personal, and

89

professional. Among the personal characteristics were
identifiers such as sex, race, age, marital status,
household income, political orientation and educational
level. Educational level was further divided into highest
level of formal education, college degree, and degree
major. Professional (occupational) characteristics included
such identifiers as employment status, amount and type of
fugitive recovery training, the number and type of fugitive
cases worked, and information related to other work the
agents engage in besides bail enforcement.

Quantitative data obtained from the surveys is
generally presented in aggregate form. The quantitative
data is elucidated through the use of qualitative data
obtained from interviews with the survey respondents.
Personal Demographics

Table 3 displays the personal demographics for race,
sex, age, income, and marital status obtained from survey
respondents. As shown in Table 3, the agents are over-
whelmingly married (57.8%), white (80.3%), and male
(91.2%). In addition, most are either between the ages of
36 and 45 (31.1%) or 46 and 55 (31.3%). As a group, nearly
half (49%) of these agents tend to identify as moderate in
their political stance. Over sixty-five percent report

having a yearly household income of $51,000 or more, with

90

34% of these agents reporting a yearly household income

exceeding $75,000.

Table 3. Personal Demographic Characteristics of Bail Enforcement
Agents Responding to the Survey Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

Personal Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate*
(N=147) (%)
Race
White 118 80.3
Non-White 28 19.0
Missing 1 .7
Sex
Male 134 91.2
Female 13 8.8
Age
Under 25 4 2.7
26-35 27 18.4
36-45 46 31.3
46-55 46 31.3
55 and Older 24 16.3

 

Marital Status

 

Married 85 57.8
Single 28 19.0
Divorced/Separated 32 21.7
Widowed l .7
Missing 1 .7

 

Political Orientation

 

Conservative 56 38.8
Moderate 72 49.0
Liberal 13 8.8
Missing 6 3.4

 

Household Income

 

Less than $25,000 12 8.2
$25,000-$50,000 35 23.8
$51,000-$75,000 46 31.3
More than $75,000 50 34.0
Missing 4 2.7

 

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

The reported yearly household income level of bounty

hunters is of interest given that only 29.3% of respondents

91

reported working full-time in their bail enforcement
activities. It is however, also of note that most (57.8%)
of the agents reported being married, thereby having the
potential for a two-income household.

Other demographic characteristics of respondents
include those related to their educational level. The

results of these demographics are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Education Level Demographic Characteristics of Bail
Enforcement Agents Responding to the Survey Questionnaire

 

Personal Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)*

 

Educational Level

High School or Less 28 19.0
Some College 82 55.8
College Degree 27 18.4
Graduate Degree 10 6.8

 

As indicated in Table 4, most agents had at least some
college. Eighty—two agents (55.8%) reported having some
college, while an additional 18.4% (n=27) have a college
degree. Further, 6.8% of respondents (n=10) reported
having a graduate degree.

As shown in Table 5, of the 36 respondents having a
college degree, 16 (43.2%) had a bachelor’s degree. Twenty-
seven percent (n=10) reported having an associate’s degree,

and twenty-seven percent (n=10) reported having a graduate

92

degree. The major most frequently identified by respon-

dents was that of social science.

Table 5. Type of Degree and Major of Bail Enforcement Agents Who
Are College Graduates

 

 

 

 

 

Degree Characteristic Total Number Response
of Respondents Rate
(N=37) (%)
Type of Degree
Associates 10 27.0
Bachelors 16 43.2
Graduate 10 27.0
Missing 1 2.7
Undergraduate Major
Social Science 16 43.2
Liberal Arts 7 18.9
Business/Finance 8 21.6
Other 6 16.2

 

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

It may be of interest here to briefly note the dif-
ferent undergraduate degree majors specified by respondents
as it just one of the characteristics that speaks to the
diversity of backgrounds among members of this occupational
group. Respondents reported majors both in and out of the
social sciences, including criminal justice, sociology, and
private security. A little more than one-third (n=13) of
respondents having an undergraduate degree reported major-
ing in criminal justice. Somewhat surprisingly, none
reported majoring in law enforcement. Some of the other
degree majors included education, accounting, architecture,

telecommunications, forestry, religion and biology.

93

The personal demographics describing the educational
characteristics of bounty hunters appear to contradict the
commonly held belief that they are uneducated. However,
before making broad generalizations about who bounty
hunters are, it is worthwhile to note that there is the
possibility that there is something unique about “educated”
bounty hunters that makes them more likely to respond to
and participate in research such as this. We cannot,
however, ever know for sure which characteristics of a
survey sample are specifically related to a participant’s
propensity to respond. As a result, we are left to respond
to the data as it presents itself, avoiding the temptation
to second-guess that which cannot be controlled.
Professional Demographics

Consistent with my desire to understand who bounty
hunters are through an examination of their personal
characteristics, I also sought to describe them through a
variety of professional characteristics. Among these
professional demographics were occupational characteristics
related to their business status and business income, as
well as their employment status. They were also queried
about what, if any, type of work they did in addition to
bail enforcement, how much and what type of bail enforce-

ment training they had, and who the sources of their

94

 

referrals were. In addition, they were asked a variety of
questions about the extent to which they were licensed or
registered to work as bail enforcement agents. They were
also asked to identify whether they worked in bail
enforcement (B.E.) full-time or part-time, the amount of
time they spent in bail enforcement activities, the number
of years of experience they had in bail enforcement, what
their business status was, what their preference was for
how they worked, and how much they earned from their bail
enforcement activities (Table 6).

Table 6 shows that 70.1% of respondents (n=103) work
part—time in their bail enforcement activities. For a
small majority (51.7%) of these agents, less than 50% of
their total work time is in bail enforcement activities,
while 43.5% (n=64) spent more than 50% of their total work
time in bail enforcement activities. What this means is
that, even though agents may be spending more than 50% of
their total work time in bail enforcement activities, it
still constitutes part-time work for them. Given this
statistic, it is likely that even though over 60% (n=89) of
respondents own their own bail enforcement business, they
work at it part-time. Further, it is of note that in

working at bail enforcement part-time, the majority of

95

I r11

agents (63.3%) earned less than $15,000 annually from this

work.

Table 6. ‘Wbrk Status and Income Characteristics of Bail Enforcement
Agents Responding to the Survey Questionnaire

 

Occupational Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)

 

Employment Status

 

Full-time 43 29.2
Part-time 103 70.1
Missing 1 .7

 

# of Years in B.E.

 

Less than five 70 47.6
Five to ten 37 25.2
More than ten 33 22.4
Missing 7 4.8

 

Business Status

 

Own business 89 60.5
Work for other agent(s) 25 17.0
Work for other agency 14 9.5
Missing 19 12.9

 

Percent time spent in B.E.

Less than 50% 76 51.7
More than 50% 64 43.5
Missing 7 4.8

 

Amount Earned from B.E.

Less than $15,000 93 63.3
$15,000-$29,999 18 12.2
$30,000—$75,000 11 7.5
More than $75,000 7 4.8
Missing 18 12.2

 

Work Preference

Alone 32 21.8
Ask agents as needed 51 34.7
Employ other agents 13 8.8
Missing 10 6.8
Not Applicable 41 27.9

 

96

Those respondents owning their own businesses were
asked their preference for how they worked and the majority
indicated that they employ other agents to help them on an
“as needed” basis. Just over 8% (n=13) of the agents who
owned their own business reported that they employed other
agents on a regular basis, and this is consistent with data
that describe this occupation as one that is engaged in
primarily on a part—time basis.

Also shown in Table 6, 17% (n=25) of those agents who
did not own their own business reported that they primarily
work for other individual bail enforcement agents. Only
9.5% (n=14) of agents reported that they worked for another
agency. While not specified as such, it is possible that
these agencies are bail bonding agencies with whom bounty
hunters contract for fugitive recovery work.

Given that nearly 70% of respondents work part-time,
it is of interest to note what other type of work they do.
It is also of interest to examine the extent to which they
are required to be licensed or registered in their state of
residence, as this may have implications for whether they
support such regulation as workers primarily employed in
the occupation part-time. Further, it is important to
understand the nature and extent of the training agents may

have received, as an argument can be made that those who

97

are fully immersed in the occupation ought to be more
highly trained and regulated. This argument is predicated
on the notion that because they spend more of their time in
bail enforcement activities, they are at higher risk for
encountering problems such as those described earlier with
regard to use of force. In addition, part-time agents have
argued that they frequently work under the supervision of
other, more experienced agents, and are therefore less
likely to encounter problems arising from (ab)use of force
issues that are linked to agent discretion. As Wade, a
part-time agent with less than five years of experience
stated in his interview:

When I go out it’s usually with another agent. I

rarely get a referral myself, but then I’ve only

been at it for a couple of years. I haven’t made

a name for myself yet. But I am careful who I

work for, too. if don”t want any problems and I

am willing to do what I am told to do. One of

the guys I work with uses me regularly, but only

if he feels he needs backup. In his case, I am

almost always the second or third guy, and I am

there to cover his back in case anything goes

wrong. I go where I am told and do what he tells

me to do. Now, I think with him he’s the kind of

98

guy who is comfortable with me because he knows

about my military background and knows I know how

to handle myself and take orders.

On the other hand, a counter-argument has been made by
full-time agents (whether they own their own businesses or
not), that part—time agents are less experienced, and are
therefore at greater risk for such problems, especially if
they work on their own. As Garth put it during his
interview:

Hoo, boy! Now you’ve touched a nerve! I think a

lot of how we got our bad reputation is from all

of these part-timers running around the country

acting like cowboys. They figure they can get

the guy at any cost and frankly, they don’t have

that much to lose. But I have a business and a

reputation and I don’t take to people who muddy

up the waters for us reputable guys by taking
unnecessary risks and acting like fools. We’re
businessmen just like any other businessmen, and

we take our work seriously. We aren’t about to

put everything we have at risk just to haul in

some yahoo misdemeanant who missed his court date

because he never bothered to check his mail.

99

As noted by the examples above, there is wide disparity of
opinions about this issue of who presents the greater
threat and therefore requires greater regulation. Some
bounty hunters, however, have experienced serious legal
problems despite their attempts to minimize the risk. In a
recent case in New Jersey, an appeals court granted a
bounty hunter a new trial on his 2003 conviction of tres-
passing because the presiding judge in the case failed to
consider Taylor v. Taintor (1872) as having any defining
authority in the case (Newsday.com, 2005). The bounty
hunter reportedly put his foot in the doorway of a home
owned by a fugitive’s mother. The mother had co-signed the
bail application and listed her address as her son’s
address. After the agent put his foot in the doorway,
police were called and the agent was arrested. The
appellate court ruled that since the agent had learned in a
bail recovery course that the 1872 Supreme Court ruling
gave him the legal right to enter the home, he should be
entitled to use it in his defense. The presiding judge in
the original case called the 1872 ruling “archaic” and
“irrelevant”.

In another case, a bounty hunter (Link) from the
northeast was left fighting for his occupational life after

being arrested and charged with kidnapping, and possession

100

of a firearm, and possession of ammunition. While both of
the possession charges were eventually dropped, the agent
was tried on the kidnapping charge. Although a jury found
him not guilty of the criminal kidnapping charge, he was
sued in civil court by the fugitive for false imprisonment.
The fugitive eventually withdrew his suit, but not before
leaving the agent “destitute”. Link reported that he
“...cannot find representation to follow up and bring those
that violated my rights, through political prosecution and
caused me irreparable [sic] harm and mental anguish.” He
also reported that he had arrested “...a politician’s
relative who was in fact a fugitive from justice...”, and
that he suffered political retribution as a result.

Table 7 presents occupational data detailing the type
of other work agents do in addition to their bail
enforcement activities. Respondents were initially asked
if they engaged in work other than bail enforcement to earn
income. A large majority (85%) of agents reported that
they did. In fact, several respondents attributed the
“necessity” of doing other work to the fact that bounty
hunters are “becoming a dying breed” in light of changes in
bail bonding laws. These changes include those occurring
in states that are adopting the ten percent rule that

allows defendants to bond out for a mere ten percent of the

101

surety bond. Other changes are related to the prohibition

of bail bonds that have a bondsman as an intermediary.

Table 7. Type of Other work Engaged In by Bail Enforcement Agents
Responding to the Survey Questionnaire

 

 

Occupational Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)
Other Work
Yes 125 85.0
No 21 14.3
Missing 1 .7

Type of Other Work

 

Professional/Tech Ops 11 7.5
Exec/Admin/Man. Ops 39 26.5
Sales 1 .7
Admin Supp Occupations,

including Clerical 16 10.9
Precision Prod/Craft

& Repair Occupations 7 4.8
Machine Ops/

Assemblers/Inspectors 1 .7
Transportation and

Material Moving Occupations 5 3.4
Handlers/Equip Cleaners

Helpers & Laborers 8 5.4
Service Occupations,

Except Private Households 30 20.4
Missing 14 9.5
Not Applicable 15 10.2

 

Hewett, an agent from the Midwest with ten years of ex-

perience, related the following during his interview:
Look, it’s almost impossible for most of us
tx> make a good living doing this. So many of

the states have gone to ten percent that it’s

102

hardly worth it for a person to even contact a
bail bondsman anymore. Why should they? There’s
no good reason for them to have to pay a bondsman
the ten percent plus when he can just pay the ten
percent the court asks so that he can get out of
jail. Except on those really high bonds, nearly
everyone can come up with ten percent. 80 if it
is a ten percent state and the court only demands
ten percent of the total bond for the person to
get out, he’s just gonna give the court the ten
percent and bypass the bondsman altogether. And
if he bypasses the bondsman, he bypasses us. No
court has ever called me up directly and asked me
to recover a fugitive. They just get the rest of
the bond the fugitive technically forfeits either
from a taxpayer fund like they do here, or they
just wait until the police stumble on the guy on
a traffic stop or some other way.

Ben, an agent from the Northeast with five to ten

years of experience put it similarly:

There are times when it is a full-time job. I
can’t just stop working a case because I have to
go to my other job. I am working the case in my

head or getting one of my pals to do it for me

103

until I get the guy. It is tough for me to
juggle my full-time job as a security supervisor
with my bail enforcement work. I don’t get a lot
of sleep, let’s put it that way. Ian: I think—-
no, I know-—I would have a lot more work if
people relied on bail bondsman more than they do
now. Really, they should have th. because it’s

only the bondsman who really gives a damn if the

guy ever shows up in court. The courts, they
don’t care. As long as they get some money, they
usually don’t care. So if people post the ten

percent on their own, the court will just take

that and wait until the next time they come

through to go after them. Because I get almost
all of my cases from the bail bondsman, if he

doesn’t get the business, neither do I.

Unlike the agents above, who attribute their part-time
work to the ten percent rule, other agents attribute it to
other business factors. Kurt, an agent from the Northeast
with two years of experience attributed his lack of full-
time bail enforcement to the fact that he is new to the
business.

Well, you know, I don’t have the reputation or

the contacts that some of the other guys have. I

104

got into it after I got out of the military.
Therefore, I have had to work my way into it. I
think attending (the NEA) school has helped more
than anything because I knew from what Scott said
that it could be a tough business to make a
living at. But the networking is good, and I’ve
gotten a couple of calls from guys I was in
school with from other states who want something
done. So now I feel it’s just a matter of time
until I can make a name for myself. In that
respect, it’s like any other business.

Even though it appears that the structure of bail
bonding may be a factor why some agents work part—time, it
is not the sole reason. However difficult it may be to
identify a single reason why agents work part-time, the
data clearly indicate that most agents do, in fact, work
part-time.

In their responses to the question of what work they
engaged in (other than bail enforcement) to earn income,
respondents provided as many as fifty different occupa-
tions. Among the occupations listed by the respondents
were museum worker, polygraph examiner, boat captain, cab
driver, electrician, counselor, pastor, tool and dye maker,

diesel instructor, and construction worker. For analysis

105

and presentation purposes, these occupations have been
grouped into nine occupational categories using the Census
2000 Standard Occupation Classification. While it might
have been methodologically appropriate to collapse
categories where the individual number of respondents is
low (e.g., Sales or Machine Operators), I chose not to do
so because I again wanted to highlight the diversity among
the people of this occupational group.

The professional characteristics of bounty hunters
reflect their work lives and help us to better understand
who they are in relation to the work they do. They also
help us to better understand whether the work they do can
be considered a profession or merely an occupation, and it
is helpful here to examine whether the knowledge and skills
they possess exist within the context of a profession, or
whether, as some have suggested, they are merely occu—
pational abilities that might, for example, be present
among any group of unskilled workers.

Historically, one of the most—used constructs for
identifying the traits of a profession was that of the
attribute model (Pavaloko, 1988). As Pavaloko (1988)
notes, “The main feature of the attribute model is the
effort to identify attributes or traits that can be used to

distinguish professions from other kinds of occupations”

106

(p. 19). Pavaloko codifies these attributes into eight
different categories. The first of these categories is the
presence of a knowledge base that serves as a basis for the
occupation’s members to claim special expertise. While it
is clear from the data in this study that bounty hunters do
possess a broad knowledge base that is similar to that
possessed by police officers and other investigators, it is
also clear that there are specific skills and techniques
that one must know in order to be successful in capturing
fugitives. It appears, however, that knowing when to use
what they know is of equal importance to what they know.
This became apparent as I accompanied Carlos, an agent from
the Midwest into the field to effect a recovery of a 19—
year-old fugitive who had failed to appear on a charge of
auto theft. Carlos was an eight-year veteran of bail
enforcement work. He reported that he “stumbled into”
fugitive recovery work after being discharged from the
military and being offered a part-time job helping out
another bail enforcement agent. He reported that he had
attended a privately run institute of bail enforcement
training after working approximately two years on a part-
time basis.

Carlos works in the capital city of a Midwestern

state. As we traveled from his small corner office in a

107

one—story building, he explained that he had a “pretty
good” idea where the fugitive was living (with his girl-
friend), and that he planned to go to her apartment, do a
brief surveillance of the residence, and then decide how to
proceed. He related that we were headed to the outskirts of
the city, on the south side, where the girlfriend reported-
ly resided. He reported that he was provided the girl-
friend’s name and address by the fugitive’s mother after he
had gone to her home looking for him. It was his mother’s
home that was listed on the bail bond contract. He re-
minded me that since this was not the address listed on the
bail bond, he was not allowed to enter the residence
without the permission of the owner:

Now, you know I can’t just go in there [the

house]. If she doesn’t give me permission, or

someone there doesn’t give me permission, there’s

no way I can get in. Honestly, I am hoping he

just forgot, you know, maybe he got wrapped up in

something or maybe even got a job and just

forgot. But I am going to assume the worse—that

he’s hiding from me and everyone else, and that

'he doesn’t want to return to court. I hope for

the best and plan for the worst.

108

Carlos was armed with a 40-caliber semi—automatic Glock
handgun which was concealed under his sports jacket. He
reported that he had never had to use his weapon in the
“dozens” of arrests he had made over the past eight years.
He stated, “This work takes brains, not braun”. He
expressed that his primary concern was that it would not be
a good time to approach the residence or the subject, and
explained that “not a good time" meant that there were too
many other people around, or that something was going on in
the residence that could be escalated by his presence at
the door (he cited a domestic argument as an example). He
also explained that he doesn’t like to “take someone in”
when there are children present, especially if the
situation “could go bad.” He explained that the fugitive
we were after had a prior criminal conviction for pos-
session of marijuana, but that he had no documented history
of violence.

In this example, Carlos was using a variety of factors
as cues for when and how to approach the residence. Among
them were the amount and type of activity at the residence
and the fugitive’s prior criminal history and history of
violence. He also expressed concern about how to gain
entry to the residence for a search in the event that the

fugitive was not readily visible. He finally acknowledged

109

that he might have to “sit up on” the house for an extended
period of time in order to determine if the fugitive was
actually there.

Clearly the agent was relying on a variety of non-
verbal cues present in the environment to help him
determine the best course of action. When queried about
how he knew which of these courses to choose, he replied,
“Well, it’s really a combination of intuition and exper-
ience. Really, given this kid’s history, he seems more
foolish than dangerous.”

Thus, the “rules” he followed for how to proceed
varied within the totality of circumstances, and were
characterized by a complexity in both their development and
their application. This is knowledge that Pavaloko refers
to as “...normative and prescriptive, not scientific.”

A second trait of the attribute model Pavaloko
identifies is that of the relationship of work to important
values of society. While a number of agents who were in-
terviewed identified financial gain as a primary motivator
for their persistence, many also spoke of their desire to
make a contribution to society.

Doogie, a male agent from the Northeast with five to

ten years of experience put it this way:

110

Why do I do it? Because I love it! There’s too

much red tape in law enforcement. Here in
[state], police officer’s aren’t
respected. For me, I can do the job without a

uniform and there’s no red tape and as long as

you have the court documents you are okay. I

have the feeling that I enn doing something good—

making a contribution.
Thus, while the criminal justice system is replete with in-
cidences of injustice, society holds “justice” as a basic
value. Engendering justice is therefore defined by society
as a noble goal of the criminal justice system, and this
goal appears to be shared by bounty hunters, as well.

A third trait identified by Pavaloko is that of
training, specifically the amount and type of training.
Training that encourages the ability to manipulate ideas
and concepts and that results in specialized knowledge
characterizes this trait. That the majority of agents had
received training is an indicator of the presence of this
trait. Although the training is somewhat diverse in its
content and amount depending on the institute where it is
taken, there is a common body of knowledge regarding laws,
control techniques, and other aspects of conduct being

taught in these institutes.

111

A fourth trait of the attribute model is that of
motivation. Specifically, motivation to provide a service
to others (as contrasted with self—interest) is prevalent.

Teddy, an agent with two-and-a—half years of experience

stated:
I perform a service for the community. No one
else is going to do it. There’s no way law
enforcement can do this job effectively. Not

with the way resources are. We are the public’s
only recourse for getting these guys off the
street. That’s part of what drives me—the sense
of justice I have. These guys bonded out saying
they would appear in court to take their medicine
and. here they are, running around. the country
without a care in the world, maybe hurting other
people. It’s not right. So I spend my time
putting together the pieces of the puzzle, in
fact, most of my time is spend putting the puzzle
together. Only about five percent is put into
the actual capture. And I feel good when I take
him to jail--like I accomplished something for
society. Now I’m going to get paid, true, but I
wouldn’t tell anybody this, but I’d probably do

this work for free I like it so much. So I go to

112

a lot of lengths to make sure I get the guy
because I just don’t want him out there running
around.

The fifth trait of the attribute model is that of
autonomy. As Pavaloko notes, autonomy, more than any other
trait, serves to differentiate work groups. Bounty hunters
have a great deal of autonomy at both the individual level
and the work group level. Although they function within
the purview of the criminal justice system, they have the
greatest amount of autonomy of all of the agents in the
system. While some of this has to do with the nature of
their work, a good deal of it has to do with their status
as independent contractors.

The sixth attribute is that of commitment, and ac—
cording to Pavaloko, it generally refers to the types of
sentiments people have about their work. Many of those
interviewed in this study spoke about their work almost as
if it was a calling. Jorge, an agent with only two years
of experience stated:

I don’t know any other way to put it. I just

love doing this work. I’d do more of it if I

could get it. I love everything about it. It’s

an adrenaline rush at times, that’s for sure, but

that’s just a small part of it. It’s really a

113

game of cat and mouse. You hide, I try to find

you. You know I’m coming, but you don’t know how

or when. I could be rolling up behind you while I

am pushed in a wheelchair in a mall, or I could

be next in line at the coffee machine at 7-11.

To me the whole thing is the best work I’ve ever

had.

The seventh attribute is a sense of community, or the
presence of a common identity. This is facilitated in the
realm of bounty hunters through annual meetings sponsored
by national associations, and through on-going training
offered at various training institutes. There is little
doubt that bounty hunters identify themselves as a special
breed. Jake put it this way when asked how bounty hunters

are different from other agents in the criminal justice

system:
I think I know what you mean. It’s true, we are
different. We’re loners, really. We cxnI work

well as members of a team but really, we enjoy it
being one—on-one. We like making our own
decisions and not being told what to do or how to

do it.

Another important aspect of developing a common iden-

tity is controlling who enters the profession. This is

114

done primarily in two ways—through enrollment in training
institutes where socialization takes place, and through the
tight-knit alliances that are formed with bail bondsmen.
It would be the rare case that a bounty hunter would be
successful without having an established relationship with
a bondsman. And given the high degree of civil liability
that the bondsmen feel when hiring bounty hunters, it is
extremely difficult to get hired on any regular basis if
the relationship with the bondsman does not exist. Most
bondsmen will only work with a bounty hunter who is a known
entity and who comes referred by someone else the bondsman
knows and respects. Danny, a bounty hunter who also is a
bail bondsman put it this way:
I don’t care who you are or what you say you’ve
done. If I don’t know you or know someone who
knows you I’m not going to hire you—period. It’s
not worth takin’ the risk working with someone I
don’t know. Some of these guys, they’re as bad
as they guys they say they are chasin’. But most
of them, they all have references, they can all
tell you who they’ve worked with in the past and
hell, I don’t hesitate, I call and get a refer-
ence on ‘em from the other bondsmen. And they’ll

tell me yes or no, it’s that simple.

115

It is acknowledged, however, that despite the
importance of their alliance with bail bondsmen,
bounty hunters may begin work in neny skates without
this alliance, and in fact, without any formal
training or regulatory oversight at all.

The last attribute of a profession identified by
Pavaloko is a code of ethics. The system of norms and
values that guides bounty hunter conduct can be and is
written in many training institutes. It can also be un—
written. For the most part, however, the code of ethics
broadly outlines the expectations for conduct. While there
are few mechanisms for the enforcement of a code of ethics
at this time, they are considered to be an important part
of the membership of at least one national bail enforcement
association.

It appears that there is sufficient evidence to sug-
gest that the occupation of bail enforcement does, indeed,
have several attributes of a profession. There is, how—
ever, evidence to suggest that many bounty hunters do not
attend training institutes where these attributes are
bestowed.

As noted previously, an overwhelming majority of
respondents (85%) engage in work in addition to fugitive

recovery. That the majority of these agents are employed

116

in the Executive/Administrative/Managerial field is not
surprising, as it is quite possible that many of these
agents are also bail bondsmen who own their own bail
bonding business. This would be consistent with the data
in Table 5 that shows that over 60% of them own their own
bail enforcement business. The occupational classification
with the next highest amount of agents employed is the
service occupation, which includes security and personal
protection personnel, police officers, and other law
enforcement personnel.

Respondents were asked during the course of their
interview about specific factors that help determine
whether they work part—time or full—time. While a small
minority (9.9%) of the 71 interviewees indicated that they
choose to work part-time due to other employment commit—
ments, most (91.1%) stated that they would like to work
full-time at bail enforcement, but the work is not readily
available to them. Max, an agent regionally located in the
West put it this way:

Oh, gosh, yes, I would like to ck>.it full time.

But very feW' make it in this profession full

time. It’s not that there aren’t enough skips to

keep us all busy full time, it’s just that with

all the PR [personal recognizance] and ten

117

percent bonds being issued by the courts, no one
but the police have responsibility' for jpicking
them up. And there’s no way they have the
ability to keep up with looking for these guys
with all of the other work they have to do.
Emmett echoed that statement, and linked his lack of
referrals to his geographic location:

I’ll take .referrals from..almost anybody; but I
get almost all of my referrals from a couple of
bail bondsmen I work with. They know they can
count on me to get the job done, so they call me.
But we’re not in the city, you know, and that
makes a big difference. When people want to hide
they stay in an urban area. Not that I wouldn’t
go to the urban area, but usually the guy in the
city has the advantage because he has more
bondsmen to work with and even the ones he
doesn”t work with.cn1 a regular basis might call
him to go pick someone up in an area he’s already
familiar with. It cuts down on time and money,
and that’s what our job is all about—getting the
job done as quick, easy and inexpensive as

possible.

118

Thus, even though many bounty hunters desire to
work at bail enforcement full-time, the structure of
bail bonding plays an important part in determining
the extent of their work. This is time case whether
the bonding occurs at the court level (n: the bondsman
level.

In addition to those professional characteristics that
describe the type of work they do, those that look at the
“qualifications” of bounty hunters also offer important
insight into who they are. As previously discussed, these
qualifications are frequently called into question by law
makers and members of the media. It is the case, however,
that little is actually known about these qualifications,
especially the nature and extent of their training.

Any discussion of bounty hunter training must take
place in the context of current requirements regarding
licensing and regulation of bounty hunters. The variation
in state-by-state requirements was briefly discussed in
Chapter 1. What is important to note here is that not all
states require bounty hunters to participate in training,
and it would be a gross understatement to say there is a
lack of systematic regulation of them or their work. How-
ever, despite the scarcity of systematic licensing or other

regulation, there is evidence that overall, bounty hunters

119

do participate in training, even when not required to do so
by their state of residence. Information describing the
state of residence for respondents is contained in Table 8.
For purposes of analysis, state of residence has been
grouped according to regions identified in Census 2000.

As shown in Table 8, the majority of respondents
reside in the Midwest. This is not surprising in light of
the fact that the majority of survey participants were
identified from their participation in the NEA, which has
the Chicago area as its central training location. Those
residing in the Northeast constitute the next largest group

of respondents, followed by the South and the West.

Table 8. Geographical Region of Residence Reported.by Survey
Respondents

 

Occupational Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)*

 

Region of Residence

West 19 12.9
Midwest 49 33.3
South 33 22.4
Northeast 44 29.9
Missing 2 1.4

 

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Table 9 contains additional information about the
professional characteristics of survey respondents. The
characteristics in this table refer to agents’ reports as

to whether their individual states have licensing and

120

registration requirements, and to whether they themselves
are licensed or registered in any states.

As indicated in Table 9, the majority of respondents
(67.3%) report that registration is not required in their
state. Additionally, a majority (52.4%) also report that
licensure is not required. Commensurate with this, just
over 59% of respondents indicated that they were not
licensed in any state. Only 22.5% (n=33) of respondents
indicated they were registered in any state. Just over
thirty-seven percent (n=55) of respondents reported they

were licensed in any state.

Table 9. Agents Reporting Licensing or Registration as a State
Requirement, and.Whether They Are Licensed or Registered in Any State

 

Occupational Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)*

 

State Registration Required

 

 

 

Yes 40 27.2
No 99 67.3
Don’t Know 1 .7
Missing 7 4.8
State Licensure Required
Yes 58 39.5
No 77 52.4
Don’t Know 10 6.8
Missing 2 1.4
Registered in Any State
Yes 33 22.4
No 105 71.4
Missing 9 6.1
Licensed in Any State
Yes 55 37.4
No 87 59.2
Missing 5 3.4

 

121

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

In addition to asking respondents about licensing and
registration requirements in their states of residence, I
also asked them about the types of occupational licenses
they held. As shown in Table 10, respondents primarily
held one or more of four different types of licenses.
Among these types of licenses are Bail Enforcement Agent
(BEA), Bail Bondsman, Private Investigator(PI)/Detective,
and Vehicle Repossession (REPO).

Table 10 shows that over half (59.8) of respondents
reported holding more than one occupational license. The
license most frequently held by multiple license holders

was that of Bail Bondsman (n=25).

Table 10. Types of Professional Licenses Held By Survey Respondents

 

Occupational Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=117) (%)

 

Type of Professional License

BEA 47 40.2
PI/Detective 23 19.6
Bail Bondsman 15 12.8
Bail Bondsman/PI 12 10.3
Bail Bondsman/BEA 9 7.7
BEA/PI 7 6.0
Bail Bondsman/REPO 2 1.7
Other 2 1.7

 

In addition to holding multiple occupational licenses,
many bounty hunters (62%) also have a permit to carry a

concealed weapon (CCW). Given that such a percentage of

122

recovery agents report having such a permit, it is of
interest to note how many of them have had firearms
training.

Table 11 shows how many agents reported having
firearms safety/use certification, as well as certifica—
tion in other types of control techniques. In addition to
being certified in firearms use and safety, agents reported

being certified in other control techniques as well.

Table 11. Type of Control Technique Certification Reported by Survey
Respondents

 

Training Total Number Response
Certification of Respondents Rate
Type (N=147) (%)

 

Firearms Use/Safety

Yes 92 62.6
No 55 37.4

 

Pressure Point Control

Yes 48 32.7
No 99 67.3

 

Verbal Judo

 

 

Yes 48 32.7

No 99 67.3
Caning

Yes 8 5.4

No 139 94.6

 

Fast Handcuffing

 

Yes 65 44.2

No 82 55.8
Other

Yes 48 32.7

No 99 67.3

 

123

Among the other techniques were pressure point control
tactics, verbal judo, caning, fast handcuffing, and
personal and executive protection. Verbal judo is de-
scribed as a type of tactical communication that involves
verbally persuading others into voluntary compliance.
Nearly one—third (n=48) of respondents reported being
certified in this technique. Caning is a type of training
that involves mastering the use of a walking cane as a
defensive weapon. Fewer than 6% (n=8) of respondents were
certified in caning techniques. More than 44% (n=65) of
respondents reported being certified in fast, or tactical
handcuffing. Agents also reported having been trained in a
variety of other control techniques, including the use of
batons in subduing a fugitive, martial arts, such as
jujitsu and karate, and a variety of other physical
restraint techniques designed to subdue a fugitive.

The data in Table 11 clearly show that the majority of
respondents have certification in at least one area of
training. Most hold certification in multiple training
techniques.

It is worth noting here that this level of training
was not unexpected among this cohort of respondents. This
is because the majority of the respondents were obtained

via their membership in the NEA and as a condition of that

124

membership, one must complete the training provided by its
training institute, The National Institute of Bail
Enforcement (NIBE). However, even when training certi-
fication was not obtained at the NIBE, it was frequently
obtained via attendance at another private training insti-
tute similar to NIBE. For purposes of analysis, these
institutes have been collapsed into three categories, NIBE,
other state sponsored institutes, and other private
sponsored institutes. Table 12 presents data on where bail

enforcement agents obtained their training.

Table 12. Site of Training Completion for Survey Respondents by Type
of Institute

 

 

Institute Total Number Response
Type of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)
NIBE
Yes 115 78.2
No 31 21.1
Missing 1 .7

 

Other State Sponsored

Yes 13 8.
No 134 91.2

CD

 

Other Private Sponsored

Yes 18 12.
No 129 87.8

N

 

As Table 12 indicates, it is clear that the majority
(78.2%) of respondents have attended and completed at least
one training program. It should be noted, however, that

there is some overlap in the data, as some respondents have

125

attended more than one training institute. Despite this
fact, it is clear that most agents have participated in
training sponsored by at least one institute.

In the course of interviewing agents I asked them
about their motivation for attending training. Overwhelm-
ingly, the majority (99%) reported that they have attended
training even when it was not required and have paid their
own way. As Ellen put it:

We insist on training. Training, training,

training. And education. We take advantage of

every opportunity to train, both locally and
nationally. We won’t deal with no one who hasn’t
been trained. It’s too risky and not a risk we
are willing to take. There are enough risks in
this business that you can’t control, but
training is one you can control. It’s always
worth the cost down the road. Training is one
thing that you do that always pays. No matter
how you look at it, training is a must.

Cameron reported that he felt so strongly about being

trained that he spent his own money to become a trainer

himself. Skilled in a variety of control tactics, this

agent stated the following:

126

There's IN) substitute for ‘training. It lot of
people think they can get by without it, but I
don’t use anybody who’s not trained. What would
be the point? You bring too many problems into
an already touchy situation when you cu) into it
without training. Nobody' in ‘their right :mind
would get into these situations without some
training-even if it was only with one other
agent. It’s too dangerous and it don’t pay.
People forget that even though you might be able
to justify using force on someone to the police,
that don’t mean that the guy isn’t going to sue
you in civil court. And even if you’re right and
did the right thing, it might cost you a fortune
just to defend yourself. It’s just not worth it.
Given that a lack of training is one of the criticisms
most frequently levied against bounty hunters, an attempt
was madeto explore all forms of training they may have
engaged in. This included both formal training such as
that provided by a training institute, and less formal
training, such as that gained through on-the-job exper—
ience. Toward this end, participants were specifically
asked if they had spent any time in the field being trained

by another, more experienced bail enforcement agent. If

127

so, they were asked to specify how many months they spent
being trained in the field before they accepted their first
case on their own. Responses varied from one to thirty—six
months. For the purpose of presentation, the responses to
the number of months spent in on-the-job (OTJ) training
were collapsed into two categories, less than six months
and more than six months. The results for these items are

presented in Table 13.

Table 13. Percentage of Bail Enforcement.Agents Engaging in On-The-Job
Training and Number of Months Spent in Training

 

Training Total Number Response
Characteristic of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)

 

OTJ Training

Yes 70 47.6
No 75 51.0
Missing 2 1.4

 

Months Spent Training

Less than 6 months 44 29.9
More than 6 months 24 16.3
Missing 2 1.4
Not Applicable 77 52.4

 

Table 13 shows that a small majority of respondents
did not participate in on-the-job training. However, it is
of note that respondents are almost equally divided between
those who did participate and those who did not. Of those
70 respondents who did participate, 44 (29.9%) partici-
pated in training that lasted six months or less, and 24

(16.3%) participated for more than six months.

128

The data presented in Tables 12 and 13 show that the
majority of respOndents report having attended training and
obtained certification in at least one control technique.
Further, the data show that nearly half of the respondents
have also participated in some on-the-job training. This
data, then, appears to contradict their image as untrained
in control techniques, and suggests that they have received
training that would help them minimize the risk of physical
altercation and avoid the use of excessive force.

In addition to the occupational characteristics as-
sociated with training and licensing and registration,.
there are several other occupational characteristics that
help to inform us about who bounty hunters are. Among
these are the number of cases they work, the sources of the
referrals for their cases, and how successful they are in
their work.

In an attempt to explore the types of cases bounty
hunters work, survey respondents were asked to identify how
many cases they had participated in (either as a primary
investigator or as an assistant to another agent) during
the 2003 calendar year. They were also asked to specify
the source of referral for these cases. These results are

presented in Table 14.

129

Table 14. Number and Percentage of Cases worked by Type of Referral
Source

 

 

Referral Source Number of Cases Worked Percentage
(N=24l3) (%)
Bail Bondsman 1,600 66.3
Defendant’s Relatives 483 20.0
Law Enforcement 290 12.0
Other 40 1.7

 

Not surprisingly, the results shown in Table 14
clearly indicate that the majority of cases were referred
by bail bondsmen. These results also support what the
agents previously stated in their interviews regarding the
availability of work. It seems that bail enforcement is an
occupation of “feast” for some, and “famine” for others.
For example, 51 (34.7%) agents worked fewer than five cases
in 2003, and a nearly identical number (35.4%) worked more
than fifteen cases. Also worth noting here is the rela-
tively high number of cases (n=483) that were referred by
relatives of defendants. This number may be reflective of
bail bonding practices previously discussed in Chapter 1.
Specifically, it appears to reflect a trend toward family
hiring the bail bondsman to post the bond for the defen—
dant, or posting the bond directly themselves. As pre-
viously noted, families often are required to post col-

lateral (i.e., property) to assure the bondsman the defen-

130

dant will appear for his court dates. When the defendant
fails to appear, the family potentially stands to lose a
house or other property, so they have a good deal invested
in making sure that the defendant is returned to the court
when he skips on his bail. Of additional interest is the
number of referrals (n=290) made to bail agents by law
enforcement officials. In addition to referrals by law
enforcement personnel, relatives of defendants, and bail
bondsmen, respondents also reported that they had received
referrals (n=40) from a variety of other sources, including
insurance companies, private investigators, other bail
enforcement agents, friends and U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Services.

Forty-eight respondents (32.7%)-reported that they
accepted international cases where the defendant had fled
the country. These 48 respondents pursued 51 defendants,
with the majority (90%) pursuing only one defendant inter-
nationally. The greatest number of defendants pursued
internationally by any bail agent was 5, and this was
reported by two agents.

Agents were also asked what percentage of their cases

resulted in a successful recovery (Table 15).

131

Table 15. Number and Percentage of Cases Resulting in a Successful
Recovery

 

 

Percentage of Cases Total Number Response
of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)
Less than 25% 20 13.6
25% - 50% 22 15.0
51% - 75% 14 9.5
More than 75% 81 55.1
Missing 10 6.8

 

Eighty-one respondents(55.1%) reported an arrest percentage
of 75% and above. Only twenty respondents (13.6%) reported
a successful recovery rate of less than twenty—five per-
cent.

A much more comprehensive understanding of the role of
bounty hunters in the criminal justice system begins to
emerge out of the professional and personal demographics
discussed above. Despite the personal and occupational
diversity present among members of this occupational group,
there is evidence to suggest that they do have traits in
common that, at least in part, characterize their occupa—
tion. Of additional importance in understanding the role
of bounty hunters in the criminal justice system is under-
standing what they do and how they do it.

‘WHAT BOUNTY HUNTERS DO AND HOW THEY DO IT

In an attempt to explore what the work of bounty

hunters is and how they go about doing it, data were

132

analyzed from the three dominant data—gathering methods
previously discussed—survey questionnaires, interviews, and
participant observation.

As discussed previously, the goal of bail enforcement
work is just as it says—to enforce bail. This is the case
whether the work is referred to as fugitive recovery
(wherein the agent “recovers” the fugitive), or skip
tracing, (wherein the agent “traces” the skip). To
elucidate the way in which this enforcement, recovery or
trace is done, survey respondents were asked how important
a variety of factors were in helping them to effect a
successful recovery. In essence, these factors inform the
decision making of bounty hunters as they go about trying
to locate and capture a fugitive.

Interviewees were asked a series of questions from the
interview guide that allowed for further exploration of
data obtained in their surveys. Participant observation
allowed for in-depth conversational exploration of these
factors, and for direct observation of their application in
the field during a two recovery attempts. What follows in
this section is a presentation of the results of the data
obtained using these three methods.

Bounty hunters were asked to rate the level of impor-

tance of several factors related to their ability to

133

successfully effect a recovery (Table 15). These factors
are characterized by their relationship to fugitive charac-
teristics and the nature of the bond. Four response cate-
gories were used to measure the level of importance. The
categories and their assigned values were: Very Important
(1), Somewhat Important (2), Somewhat Unimportant (3), and
Very Unimportant (4). Missing cases were excluded from the
analysis. Mean scores were computed for each factor for
respondents by summing the assigned value of each of the
responses and dividing by the number of scores summed.
Lower mean scores represented greater importance of a
factor.

It can be seen in Table 16 that, in general,
respondents identified both the nature of the bond and
fugitive characteristics as being either somewhat important
or somewhat unimportant. There was very little variation
in the mean scores for either of these factors. For
example, the lowest mean score (M=1.45) was on the amount
of physical danger perceived present at the time of the
recovery. The highest mean score (M=2.39) was on whether
the fugitive failed to appear in an in—state or an out-of-

state court.

134

Table 16. JMean Scores for Level of Importance of the Nature of the
Bond and Fugitive Characteristics in Effecting a Successful Fugitive
Recovery

 

Factor Mean Sd

 

Nature of the Bond

 

Q. 46a (Bondable Offense) 1.88 (1.45)
Q. 46b (Bondsman’s History) 2.02 (1.33)
Q. 46f (Reason for failure

to appear) 2.31 (1.40)
Q. 469 (In/out of state) 2.39 (1.39)
Q. 46h (Where bonded to) 2.05 (1.47)

 

Fugitive Characteristics

 

Q. 46c (Offender Characteristics) 1.71 (1.38)
Q 46d (Fugitive’s lifestyle) 1.60 (1.41)
Q. 46e (Criminal History) 1.52 (1.30)
Q 46i (Physical danger) 1.45 (1.07)

 

The mean score of 1.45 indicates a belief that
perceived physical danger is somewhat important, whereas
the mean score of 2.39 indicates a belief that whether the
case is an in-state or out-of-state case is somewhat
unimportant. The fact that all mean scores fall somewhere
between these two values indicates that each of the factors
is essentially only somewhat important. Thus, the
informative value of the ratings of these factors may lie
in their overall value to the recovery process itself, and
not necessarily in the relationship of one factor to
another. It may, therefore, be useful to discuss such

factors in this context.

135

One of the difficulties in identifying the situational
factors that bounty hunters use in effecting a recovery is
the meaning any specific factor has within a given context.
For example, it was clear from the quantitative analysis
that the mean score for the factor of “perceived danger”
was the lowest for all of the factors, indicating its
greater importance in effecting a recovery. In the course
of their interviews, I asked respondents to elaborate on
this factor specifically, as it appeared to be related to
many other factors.

In interviewing respondents about this factor, I
reminded them of their answer to the question in the
survey. I then asked them the open-ended question “What
factors do you consider when the dangerousness of a situa-
tion is being assessed?” Only by asking this question as a
follow—up to their survey response was I able to garner the
contextual information that allowed me to better under-
stand the process by which they came to decide what a
“dangerous” situation was. It is important to note here
that my focus was not on why they considered a situation
dangerous, but the process they used to reach a conclusion
about it’s dangerousness. As described by each of the
interviewees, the process initially begins with a brief

assessment of a variety of “sub-factors”. Among these sub-

136~

factors are the nature of the offense, how much the fugi—
tive has to lose, the reason why the fugitive failed to
appear, and the neighborhood where the fugitive is sus—
pected to be hiding.

In the process of interpreting these factors in
relation to one another, the agent appears to utilize a
decision tree that allows him to subsequently evaluate the
other factors. Several of these factors were considered in
the case of Jed, an agent with seven years of experience
who spoke about the process he uses to assess dangerous-
ness:

Well, it’s a never—ending process, I will tell

you that. This is something you constantly have

to reassess. Let’s say I find out from the
bondsman that the offense for which he was out on
bond was an assaultive offense—or maybe it
involved a weapon, like say, a drive-by

[shooting]. In that case, I’m thinking from the

get-go that this couLd be dangerous. Iknv let’s

add that not only is it a drive-by, but he’s a

three-striker. So now he’s lookin' at life
without parole maybe. Well, that takes it up
another notch. Now let' 3 say he’ s fled to an

area where he's hangin' with some cflf his

137

Cash,

homeboys. So I get down to ‘the hood’ lookin’
for this brother, amd I can tell from the first
couple of homeboys I talk to that there’s not
gonna be any cooperation there, and in fact,
might be some resistance. Well, you can see
where this is going. What started out to maybe
not be much of anything with a guy who failed to
appear because, hell, I don’t know, let’s say he
don’t pick up his mail, now all of a sudden it’s
a much bigger deal. The danger level went from
almost nothin’ to something serious as I get more
into it. Now let’s say I find the guy. After
all that, yeah, I’m gonna be careful. So I might
bring in a guy to help me take him in, or maybe I
will do a bit more surveillance just to minimize
the risk of taking him.ixu But yeah, I’m gonna
be more careful that I might have in the
beginning because now I know things I didn’t know
in the beginning and I want to minimize the
possibility of escalation.

an agent with more than ten years of experience

echoed this process:

You can’t know what is going to happen, you can

only try to lessen the risk. But the risk keeps

138

changing, and you can’t predict how or when it
will change. Things can be running totally
smooth right up until you go to handcuff the guy,
the all of sudden he decides he wants to save
face in front of his kid or his girlfriend so he
starts putting up a fight. Right then you gotta
be paying attention—like always—because there are
subtle cues people give off about what they're
feeling or how they are going to act. And you
have to be able to read these cues. Some of the
most important cues are those dealing with
violence. You have to always assume that there
is going to be a problem. You tell them, ‘Hey, I
don’t want. no problems and you don’t want no
problems, right?’ I say, ‘You can go easy or you
can go hard, but you’re goin’ with me.’ II don’t
try to embarrass them or give them a hard time.
In fact, one time I had a guy who I arrested on
Father’s Day and he was havin’ a hard time with
it and just kept sayin’ he didn’t want to go Oh
Father’s Day. So after we arrested him and we
went to the hotel I let him call his family and
they came down to the hotel and we had a little

celebration in the room and then he was cool. So

139

in that case things were looking touchy for
awhile but then later they cooled down and
everything went smooth after that. You just
gotta be flexible and know when it’s time to come
down hard and when it’s time to ease up. But you
gotta pay attention, you definitely gotta pay
attention.

As shown in table 16, survey respondents generally
agreed that factors relating to the nature of the bond and
fugitive characteristics were at least somewhat important
in helping them effect a recovery. In addition, they also
identified several technical skills and personality traits
that were very important in helping them effect a recovery.
For example, they identified effective communication
skills, the ability to listen, patience, and the ability to
read verbal and non-verbal cues as being very important.
What this suggests is that there is general agreement among
the members of this occupation as to what types of skills
and techniques are important in effecting a recovery. This
supports my earlier assertion that the systematic appli-
cation of these skills and techniques is common to this
occupation, and is one of eight fundamental attributes that
Pavaloko (1998) identifies as being essential to a

profession.

140

In identifying the level of importance of these skills
and traits, survey respondents provided a foundation for
using interviews to explore the relationship between case-
related factors and their skills and traits. For example,
during one interview, Monte expanded on the how the nature
of the offense and his assessment of physical danger play
into the skills he uses:

The nature~ of the offense, well, that doesn’t

really matter that much to me because I will go

after anyone. And his size don’t matter, either
because this is a game of wits. I’m always extra
cautious no matter what the case. You’d be
naive—and I’ve seen it happen—to think that the
most minor charge can’t become a big problem. I
depersonalize things. It don’t matter to me why
the guy didn’t show. It only matters if I can
use it to convince him that it’s in his best
interest to come in. Like one time Illuni a guy
whose mother was in the hospital and he didn’t
appear because he knew he was going to jail and
he didn’t want to go with his mother in the
hospital. 80 I went to the hospital and talked
to him. and. we sat in the little room and I

listened to him talk about his mother and her

141

illness and I talked to him like I was his
father—you know, what would his mother want and
all that. So I gave him the chance to go in and
say goodbye to her and then we walked out
together, and I didn’t put the cuffs on him or
anything until after VH3 got outside because you
know, he didn’t want the people at the hospital
to see him like that. But I was concerned when I
went up there because there he was all upset and
everything and you just don’t know what will
happen. You always prepare as though it could go
bad. Here, though, it wasn't so bad because I
didn’t think there would be a lot of physical
danger because we were in a hospital and his
mother was there, and despite how tough these
guys talk and act, they don’t want to look bad in
front of their mothers.
Archie also spoke to this issue:

Taking the guy in, that’s what’s important. So I
have to use anything and everything I can to make
that happen, I mean, within the bounds of the
law. We are different than cops. They get paid
for eight hours of work whether they are able to

arrest the guy or not. And that warrant might

142

still be there if they are off for a couple of
days and they come back to work they can try
again, if they have time. But if something else
comes up, they may not get back to it for weeks
or maybe months. We have to get our information

on our own—we don’t get agency cooperation or

help. We can’t just walk into Social Services
and say we’d like some information. We have to
go about it totally different. We just don't

have the same data sources they [law enforcement]
have. Now, this can work to our advantage,
because I think lots of times cops rely too much
on those databases and don’t think creatively
enough about other ways to get information other
than to show their badge and say they are from
such and such police agency and expect
cooperation. On the other hand, we don’t have
all that red tape to go through, and that works
to our advantage. But we have to be determined.
I’m not going to get a cent unless I bring the
guy in. There’s just no way around it. That
means that I have to rely on my intuition and
other sources of information rather than official

ones. I have to be more creative. So I like to

143

know as much as I can about a guy because I

figure it gives me the edge. I know him, but he

doesn’t knOW' me. Really, it [success] is in

being able to think fast on your feet. You gotta

be

able to blend in. It’s like being a

chameleon, adapting to the environment you’re in.

In the end, it really just comes down. to ‘who

wears who out first. And I don’t never wear out.

The role of “intuition” was explored in the inter-

views, and several participants raised it as an issue

before I did. While there was a tendency at times for the

participants to speak about intuition as a near—mystical

quality,

it was clear from their reports that what appeared

to be intuition on the surface was really just a technique

the agent used to synthesize information. This technique

is best described by Barry Neil Kaufman (2001):

Intuition is merely fast logic in a slow logic
world. It refers to the process of going from A
to D to S to Z without having to fill in the
blanks in between in order to make the
connections that slow logic does incrementally.

...When we develop a meaningful level of self-
trust and comfort, we allow our thinking process

to operate more optimally and, thus, make

144

connections and insights in a fraction of the

time otherwise required (p. 33).

Like many people experienced in their occupation,
bounty hunters report having a “feel” for when something
“isn’t quite right.” They characterize this feel as
intuition. As Kaufman points out, however, this feel
develops with experience and is essentially a thought
process that occurs without having to make the same logical
connections that a slower logic would require. This
explanation helps account for the impression I developed
while conducting the interviews and participant observa—
tion that bounty hunters with more experience relied more
heavily on intuition to guide their actions than did less
experienced ones, and this is supported by the data in
Tables 19, 20, and 21. There were several indicators of
this phenomenon in the interview responses given to my
inquiry about the role of intuition in guiding their
actions. Gabe, an agent who had been working as a bounty
hunter for approximately eighteen months said this about
assessing the physical risk of harm:

I think it is very ,high. This is a risky

business. These guys we are after aren’t

choirboys. If they were they wouldn’t be in this

situation. You can never tell what will happen

145

and you don’t ever want to let your guard down.
You may go into it thinking that he’s not going
to be a problem but you have no way of really
knowing that. You just never know what you’ve got
until you get into it. So you have to assume he
is going to be a problem. That way you are never
caught unprepared.

Contrasted with this assessment is the assessment of Vito,

a veteran bounty hunter with more than ten years of

experience:
Really, the risk is pretty low. ILE you look at
the number of times we actually get into it with
someone it’s very, very few. Sure, there is the
potential for it to happen, but the probability
just isn’t that high. Not that you want to take
it for granted. But after you spend a few
minutes with the bondsman, or even the relative,
you start to get a sense of what you are up
against, and you can plan accordingly. Most of
the time it’s very uneventful. Heck, I would
estimate that over 50% of my cases involve
someone who simply forgot about the date [they
were supposed to appear]. That doesn’t mean I'm

not going to take him in, but I don’t have to

146

hire an army to help me do it, either. Ninety-

nine percent of the time I can predict within

fifteen minutes of getting the paperwork how it

[the recovery] will go down--assuming I lunna the

basic information I need about who I am after and

what the circumstances are. But, I’ve done so
many now even that doesn’t really' matter that
much.

Evident in the responses above is the process by
which bounty hunters interpret the symbolic meaning of
factors in their environment and in their experience.
These examples suggest that bounty hunters do engage in a
process of assigning meaning to people and events and then
act accordingly. Understanding how they come to assign
this meaning provides important insight into the rationale
they have for how they go about doing their work. The
process is clearly a dynamic one. Further, it is evident
from the examples above that the process bounty hunters use
to attach meaning to situations and the people in them is a
function of their interpretation of those situations.

What follows is another example related to this
phenomenon and focuses once again on the factors that are
assessed when effecting a recovery. Of particular note in

this example is the way in which the factors are inter—

147

connected, and the process used to configure a bigger

picture of what the agent might be able to expect at the

time of recovery:
Well, here’s the thing. For me, the perceived
risk is always high. It’s never not high. But,
because of this, the actual risk is pretty low.
What that means is, is tflmn: I always prepare for
the worst. If there’s something I don’t know for
sure, I assume it’s the worst. So I get some of
the pieces of the puzzle from the bondsman--or
let’s say the family-and I start to put the
puzzle together—you know, where he might be, who
he’s with, what he’s doin’. But then I get
another piece—let’s say a phone call from someone
sayin’ where they think he’s at—but somethin’
about it just doesn’t seem right. Now maybe
somebody’s got a Ibeef with this guy and it’s
legit, but I’m thinking, what’s with the phone
call? ‘Cause the guys I think he’s hangin’ out
with, they’re not the one’s makin’ the call. So
now I think somethin’s up, but I don’t know what.
So I’m gonna be extra careful from that point
forward. Not that I’m not gonna check out the

phone call, but I’m gonna be careful. Maybe do

148

some more homework, see who lives at the address

I was given, maybe snoop around more. Ihmv maybe

I would’ve ended up at that address anyway, even

without the phone call, but the phone call itself

doesn’t really fit. So that piece doesn’t fit.

And when a puzzle piece doesn’t fit, that a sign

to watch out. Something’s not right. So now the

perceived risk is higher even though the actual

risk might be the same (Rad).
This example again demonstrates the process bounty hunters
engage in when evaluating or “sizing up” the danger in-
volved in effecting the recovery. Evaluating this par—
ticular factor appears to have importance because of its
perceived connection to other factors that influence how a
bounty hunter goes about effecting the recovery.

This same process extends to other arenas of bounty
hunter conduct, as well. For example, respondents were
asked whether they routinely used any kind of badge or wore
any kind of clothing that identified them as a bail
enforcement agent. The results are presented in Table 17.
As the table shows, the majority of respondents, (73.5%)
use a badge, and 60.5% use other identifying clothing (such

as a vest, a jacket, or a hat) in the course of doing their

work.

149

It is not only the number of agents reporting their
use of a badge or clothing that is of interest, but also
the process they use in deciding when to identify them-

selves as bail enforcement agents.

Table 17. Number and Percentage of Agents Reporting the Routine Use of
a Badge or Clothing as Identification

 

 

 

Identifying Total Number Response
Item of Respondents Rate
(N=147) (%)
Badge
Yes 108 73.5
No 32 21.8
Missing 7 4.8
Clothing
Yes 89 60.5
No 54 36.7
Missing 4 2.7

 

Overwhelmingly, 100% of the interviewees reported that they
were very judicious in the use of these identifiers. As I
accompanied Hank into the field, I asked him to elaborate
on the process he used to determine when to use his badge
and identifying clothing and when not to. He put it this
way:
Look, I have the same rights as anyone else.
Just your average Joe, really. No more and no
less. I don’t have a license—I don’t need one
and neither would you if you wanted to walk up
and try to take the guy into custody. But I Ch)

have a copy of the original bond and a copy of

150

the warrant. That’s what makes me different from
the average Joe. So my badge, I ordered it. It
doesn’t give me any big authority or anything
like that. But when I go to the police
department to let them know I’Ht:h1 town looking
for someone, I show them my ID card and my badge.
To a lot of cops it doesn’t mean a thing. And to
some people, too. But it’s just for
identification” I don’t go around flaunting it.
But I have my ID and my badge just in case there
is any doubt and just in case the skip thinks I’m
trying to kidnap him or something. But I don’t
show it unless I have to. Now my jacket, that’s
different. I will wear that, especially if
there’s more than one of us on a job or it's dark
because I want everybody to be able to tell who’s
who, and the cops, too. Again, I only wear it on
certain occasions. I have to luumv when t1) wear
it and when not to. Now if I’m trying to walk up
behind. a guy at 7-11 who’s there to get his
morning coffee, I sure ain’t gonna have it on or
be flashin’ my badge. But if the clerk at the
store had a problem with me escorting the guy out

the door I might show him my ID and badge after I

151

got the guy in cuffs and secured in the van. But
only then would I show it, and it'd be to avoid a
bigger problem with the cops being called and the
guy yellin’ Ina was being kidnapped. I don’t
especially take to lettin’ some of these guys
even know who I am. I’d rather just tell them
who I’m workin’ for—that's all the name they need
to know.
As we traversed the city streets of the skip’s old neigh-
borhood, we stopped four times so that Hank could talk to
four different men on the street. We were looking for a
fugitive, a 29-year-old black male, who failed to appear on
a charge of possession of cocaine a week earlier. The
bondsman’s attempts to reach the skip by telephone in the
days following his failure to appear had not been success-
ful. Not once in his encounters with the four men did Hank
show his badge. Neither did he have any identifying
clothing on. Wearing jeans, athletic shoes and a long
sleeved Henley shirt, he looked more like the people on the
street than not, except that he was white and the men he
encountered were black. He had with him a black and white
copy of a picture of the fugitive from a previous arrest.
I got out of the car with him as we approached each

SUbject. Showing the picture to each one, he asked each of

152

the four people we encountered whether they had seen the
guy. Each replied that they had not, and that they did not
know who he was. As we re-entered his van following our
encounter with citizen #4, Hank expressed his skepticism
and explained to me that in that particular neighborhood,
“people know each other.” He stated that he was now left
with a decision as to whether to trust his skepticism and
keep looking in that area, or to abandon his search in that
neighborhood. He decided to trust his skepticism. In doing
so, he made the decision to return to the area the next day
in a different vehicle and use a more covert observational
approach. He also made the decision at that moment to
drive through the “drug district” given the fugitive’s
history of dealing drugs. He explained in doing so that he
hoped to “maybe get lucky” and see the fugitive either on
the street or coming or going out of a house or a local
bar.

I asked Hank about his decision to confront the people
he saw on the street rather than begin with covert
surveillance of the area. As he explained it, he was
“counting on” his ability to appear sympathetic to the
fugitive and was hoping that he could convey this sympathy
to others in the neighborhood and they could relay it to

the fugitive. He explained it this way:

153

Well, I could spend a day or two or maybe a week
doing surveillance and get nothing. As always,
time is money. This guy already has a history.
He knows the routine. And I don’t know why he
didn’t show up; the bondsman called his mother
and the number he had for a former girlfriend and
they claimed they hadn’t seen him. He doesn’t
have a history of violence, other than a tussle
he got into with his girlfriend awhile back. So
I’m hoping this is a case where reason will
prevail. By letting people know I am looking for
him I am basically trying to tell him through
others that I’m here to help him get out of this
jam. You know, he can take advantage of the
help, or he can go the hard way. But I’m sure he
already knows that. Talking to others, that’s
just my reminder to him. I didn’t leave a card,
but I did tell these guys to have him call his
bondsman right away. Things will only get worse
for this guy as time goes on. He’s gonna go back
(to court)—it’s just a matter of time. Now
somebody else who doesn’t know the system or how
all of this works, yeah, I might do more

surveillance to start. But this guy, he knows

154

somebody’s after him by now, 5%) IHn not letting

him know anything he doesn’t already know.

I also asked Hank if he felt any sense of danger as he
approached each of the subjects. He replied,

No, no real sense of danger. The only thing I

really would worry about in this situation is

that one of these guys might mistake me for an

undercover cop and have something going on that I

don’t know about. So I could spook him and he

might react to me based on his belief that I am a

cop. That would be my main worry. Of course,

there is always the chance that one of these guys

is a nut and could go off for no reason, but that

risk is not any higher here than anywhere else.

This fieldwork example exemplifies the process bounty
hunters engage in for deciding when and how to use a badge
and/or identifying clothing, as well as assessing danger.
It is also an example of the factors they consider regard-
ing which skills and techniques they use in searching for
and actually recovering a fugitive. The process illus-
trated in this example involved a rapid assessment of
environmental and interpersonal factors that guided the

agent in knowing when and where to search, when and if to

155

get out of the vehicle, and what manner to use in relating
to the subject.

In an attempt to further explore how this process is
used with regard to the specific techniques and skills, I
asked survey respondents (N=147) to rate the importance of
a variety of skills and traits in effecting a recovery. I
broke out the types of skills and traits into four cate-
gories: technical skills, interactional (relational)
skills, personality (character) traits, and experiential
traits.

Among the technical skills identified are such
abilities as being able to know how and when to use a
weapon, the ability to access public records, and the
ability to gather relevant information from those public
records. Interactional, or relational, skills refer to
those that characterize how they interact with others,
specifically those information sources (including friends
and relatives) whose information leads to the whereabouts
of the fugitive, and the fugitive themselves. Such traits
allow an agent to effectively blend in with the environ-
ment, know who to talk to and when, and how to listen.

Character traits refer to those traits that are more a
function of one’s personality and are more difficult to

learn than technical or interactional skills. Among these

156

traits are curiosity, patience, and inquisitiveness.
Experiential skills, on the other hand, are traits that may
be rooted in either technical, interactional, or character
traits, but are, in general, traits that develop with
experience. Among these traits is the ability to recognize
and respond to verbal and non-verbal cues, to know how to
operate within the “gray” areas of the law, and to use
discretion in when and how to act.

It may be worthwhile here to acknowledge that all
traits essentially have the potential to be experiential
traits. That is, it is likely that no matter the trait, it
develops as one gains experience utilizing that trait.

It is clear, however, that some traits lend themselves more
readily to experiential development than others.

Table 18 shows the results of the survey data for
these four categories of factors. Four response cate-
gories were used to measure the level of importance. The
categories and their assigned values were: Very Important
(1), Somewhat Important (2), Somewhat Unimportant (3), and
Very Unimportant (4). Missing cases were excluded from the
analysis. Mean scores were computed for each item for re-
spondents. Lower mean scores represented greater impor-

tance of an item.

157

Table 18. mean Scores for Level of Importance of Technical Skills,
Interactional Skills, Character Traits, and Experiential Skills in
Effecting a Successful Fugitive Recovery

 

Factor Mean Sd

 

Technical Skill

 

Q. 49h (Gather information) 1.48 1.23
Q. 49j (How to use weapons) 1.35 1.20

 

Interactional Skill

 

 

 

 

 

Q. 49a (Communication) 1.25 1.18
Q. 49f (Ability to blend in) 1.39 1.21
Q. 49i (Ability to listen) 1.29 1.18
Character Trait

Q. 49b (Patience) 1.26 1.18
Q. 49c (Curiosity) 1.47 1.34
Q. 49k (Stamina) 1.62 1.54
Experiential Skill

Q. 49d (Read cues) 1.27 1.18
Q. 49e (Gray areas) 1.82 1.60
Q. 49g (Who to talk to) 1.33 1.19

 

As Table 18 shows, overall, respondents identified
each of these traits as being at least somewhat important.
Respondents identified several of the traits as being very
important, regardless of the category of trait into which
they fell. For example, they identified effective com-
munication skills (M=1.25), patience (M=1.26), the ability
to read verbal and non-verbal cues patience (M=1.27), and
the ability to listen when people talk (M=1.29) as having
greater importance than how to use weapons (M=1.35), the
ability to blend in (M=l.39), curiosity (M#1.47), the

ability to gather information (M=1.48), and having the

158

stamina to stay in position for long periods of time
(M=1.62). The trait that ranked of least importance was
the ability to work within the gray areas of the law
(M=1.82).

In addition to these skills and traits, survey re-
spondents also identified a variety of others they thought
were important in effecting a recovery. Since these re-
sponses only numbered one each, however, they are only
mentioned briefly here. One respondent each identified the
following traits as being important to them: the ability
to depersonalize the fugitive’s actions, the presence of
common sense, good teamwork, good investigative skills, the
ability to react quickly, good planning, and the ability to
possess and operate the appropriate surveillance equipment.

Overwhelmingly, bounty hunters do identify specific
skills and traits as being important in their work. What
this suggests is that there is a body of shared knowledge
that is valued by the members of this occupational group,
and that this knowledge is identified as being essential to
being successful in their work. For a bounty hunter, being
successful means capturing the fugitive and returning him

to jail.

159

BOUNTY HUNTER OPINIONS REGARDING LICENSING AND REGULATION

In addition to asking survey respondents (N=147) to
identify the importance of various skills and traits in
effecting a recovery, they were also asked to rate their
level of agreement on a number of issues related to their
regulation. Among these issues were how important they
feel their role in the criminal justice system is, whether
they should be licensed or registered, and if so, whether
the regulation should be at the state or federal level of
government. They were also asked their opinions about
whether such regulation might help to standardize bounty
hunter practices, might lead to a more professional view of
the bounty hunter, whether it would increase professional-
ism, and whether it might help to improve the financial
gain they receive from their bounty hunter work.

The rating categories for each item were: Strongly
Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3) and Strongly Agree
(4). Mean scores for each item were computed by summing
the assigned value of each of the responses and dividing by
the number of scores summed. Missing cases were excluded
from the analysis. Higher mean scores represented a
greater degree of agreement with an item. These results

are presented in Table 19.

160

Table 19. Mean Scores for Survey Respondents’ Opinions Regarding the
Role of Licensing and Registration

 

 

 

Item # Issue Mean SQ;
Q. 54 (CJ Role) 3.66 .82
Q. 55 (“Professional” Occupation) 3.63 .80
Q. 56 (Federal Licensing) 2.65 1.38
Q. 57 (State Licensing) 2.91 1.14
Q. 58 (Federal Registration) 2.78 1.28
Q. 59 (State Registration) 3.05 1.06
Q. 60 (View as Professionals) 3.40 .97
Q. 61 (Standardize Practices) 3.35 1.10
Q. 62 (Increase Professionalism) 3.35 1.06
Q. 63 (Improve Financial Gain) 2.98 1.50
Q. 64 (Licensing Bail Bondsmen) 2.50 1.51

 

The results in Table 19 show that respondents general-
ly indicated agreement with each of the issues identified
above. Not surprisingly, the strongest level of agreement
(M=3.66) was on the item “Bail enforcement agents play an
important role in the criminal justice system.” This was
followed closely by item #55, “Bail enforcement should be
considered a ‘professional’ occupation” (M=3.63). Respon—
dents were also in relatively strong agreement ((M=3.40)
that licensing bail enforcement agents would help them to
be viewed by others in the criminal justice system as
professionals. In addition, they generally agreed that
licensing would help standardize practices (M=3.35), and
similarly, that licensing would increase the professional-
ism of bail enforcement agents (M=3.35).

To a lesser degree, respondents agreed that licensing

would help to improve their financial gain, and that

161

licensing should be required at the state level (M=2.98 and
M=2.91, respectively). There was even less agreement
(M=2.78) that registration should be required at the
federal level. The least amount of agreement was with
whether licensing should be required at the federal level
(M=2.65), and whether licensing would be effective without
licensing bail bondsmen (M=2.50).

Since much of the time spent in interviews focused on
this issue of licensing and regulation, I was able to gain
a better understanding of the context in which respondents
answered these items. Specifically, I asked about the
rationale for favoring one form of regulation over another,
or in favoring no regulation to some regulation. In
general, respondents were in favor of regulation, and this
is indicated in their general level of agreement with items
60, 61, and 62. It should be noted, however, that many
interviewees, while in general agreement about licensing
and/or registration, expressed caution about how it would
affect their use of discretion. As Guyot (1991) notes in
her discussion of police discretion, the skilled use of
discretion requires that officers be able to assess a
situation and know what to do based on that assessment. She
argues that there are a number of attributes an officer has

that affects the quality of their decisions. The skills

162

and traits Guyot identifies as being fundamental to the
exercise of discretion are: 1) Curiosity; (2) Judgment of
Danger; (3) A tragic perspective; (4) Decisiveness, and (5)
Self-Control. Like police officers, bounty hunters also
utilize these skills and traits to assess situations and
determine what actions to take.

Possessing alert curiosity is an essential trait for
bounty hunters and allows them to detect the unusual. They
are able to notice things in their environment that are
less apparent to others. They come to know what Guyot
refers to as the “ordinary flow of events” and can detect
deviations from them. Some bounty hunters refer to this
capability as a “sixth sense”, although as previously
discussed, it appears to simply be fast logic:

Look, you can do it [recovery work] by the book

.if you want, but there really isnft.ea book that

tells you how to do it in every situation. YOu

can’t rely’ on a fixed set of rules in every
situation. There have to be guidelines, true,
but they have to kxa flexible enough t1) allow us

to do our jobs. There are going to be some

things common to every case, and every case will

be different from another case in some way. YOu

have to be able to detect when something isn’t

163

Roth

right. And that's true no matter how much
planning you do. You might say, gee, he’s at his
75-year-old mother’s house, so that’s no problem.
But what you see is a hot rod parked in the drive
and figure, hey, if it was a Buick LeSabre it
would be one thing, but a hot rod? So that tells
you. maybe someone else is living there or at
least visiting, and that tells me find out who
belongs tx> that car before II go 1J1 there—or at
least. get some Ihelp. YOu. gotta have a sixth
sense about these things (Price).

related the following:

I got a tip one time that a guy was stayin’ with
his girlfriend. I went (X) a. house where the
girlfriend lived and it was pretty nice—it didn’t
look like a drug house or nothin’ like that. And
after a bit she let us come in and even let us do
a search and kept saying ‘he ain’t here, I ain't
seen him'.” And there wasn’t a thing there that
would indicate he had been there. We even
checked the attic. So I suggested that we just
sit down and. wait for awhile and she started
stammering' and. saying' no, we couldn’t do that

because she luui to leave, etcetera. She seemed

164

to get pretty agitated when I said we would wait.

So I started to get curious about why she was all

nervous when I said that. And when I started to

sit on this little love seat type thing she had

in the living room she lfifll over and directed me

to the chair. So then I really got curious. So

we looked under the love seat and there he was,

with the bottom springs all torn out, hiding.

Now, a lot of guys might have just waited outside

or maybe not waited at all, but me, I could sense

something wasn’t right. Especially because I

thought the tip was a good one.

Using this fast logic (intuition) to assess the
dangerousness of a situation is a skill that bounty hunters
universally value. Like police officers, bounty hunters
identify danger as an unavoidable part of the job. They
also agree that making errors in judgment about the danger-
ousness of a situation can result in civil and legal
liability claims that can threaten their careers. They
must be able to assess the potential for danger and act as
circumstances dictate. ‘As Dane described it, he always
errs on the side of caution when approaching an

unpredictable situation:

165

Things can and do jump off in a hurry. You have

to be on your toes at all times. Just about the

time you let your guard down, something is sure

to happen. But you can’t go into every

interaction apprehensive because you can get a

lot of information by acting friendly and casual.

But you still have to be wary.

Despite this caution, the consequences for misjudging a
situation can be dire. On the one hand, the bounty hunter
can over-react and cause harm to the fugitive or innocent
bystanders. On the other hand, if the bounty hunter under-
reacts, harm or even death can come to him.

One of the traits bounty hunters display that affects
their assessment of dangerousness is the perspective they
carry into their interactions with fugitives. Because the
work of bounty hunters consistently focuses on what people
have done wrong, and on how they are trying to “escape”
their responsibilities, it would be easy for them to
develop a jaded perspective about fugitives and those who
help them. But participants in this study appear to have
developed a larger, compassionate perspective about their
work and the fugitives they are chasing. This perspective

appears helpful in assessing how to go about their work:

166

I definitely try to depersonalize the whole
situation. IKNI can’t judge someone else ‘until
you’ve walked iJI their shoes. When 12 go after
someone I don’t have any idea why they didn’t
appear. Maybe they are in the hospital, heck,
maybe they even died. Now, it is their
responsibility to contact the bondsman to let
them know what is going on, but still, you just
don’t know. I think I read somewhere where about

40% of quote fugitives just simply forgot about

their court date. That seems about right to me.

So for me to get all worked up and think that

this guy is the scum of the earth and he’s gotta

be put behind bars, nah, I don’t usually get an
attitude--especially with no reason (Brady).
By having such a perspective, it helps direct the efforts
of the bounty hunter toward assistance rather than inter-
ference. This results in less danger for the bounty
hunter, thereby reducing liability.

Another trait important to effective recovery work is
decisiveness. Bounty hunters make countless decisions
throughout the course of a fugitive recovery. Perhaps one
of the most important decisions they make is when to act—

i.e., when to effect the recovery. In making the recovery,

167

the agent occasionally resorts to making threats or using
force. But interview data seem to suggest that the use of
threats and force is judicious and for most participants, a
last resort. As Ellen noted, she knew when to use one or
the other:

Women are better conversationalists. bkni try to

bully' people into giving' them. information.

People don’t respond too well to that. They clam

up. But you gotta know when to get serious, too.

I went with my husband on a case once and he was

trying to be polite with this woman trying to

convince her to come with us, even when she was
being wicked with him. Finally, I grabbed her by
the hair and threw her down. He was reluctant to
physically intervene. Hey, I’ve got eight kids.

I know how to control somebody!

The last trait associated with the use of discretion
is self-control. Participants in this research reported
that self-control played an important part in how they go
about their work. Specifically, they indicate that reading
verbal and non—verbal cues and being able to effectively
communicate with peOple are important traits that underlie

self-control. Interview participants clearly linked a lack

168

of self—control with higher liability. Art suggested that
a lack of self-control could exacerbate a situation:

You already' have a situation. where tension is

high. This guy you’re after, his whole world is

about to change just because you showed up at his
door at that particular moment. He has a lot at
stake. And he is going to beg and plead, and so

is his family, not to take him—to let him call

the bondsman the next day and work it out. Zuni

when you tell them that can’t happen, they get
upset. And they can be vicious, yelling, calling
you names, sometimes getting right up in your
face. This is definitely not the time for you to
get upset, too. This is the time for you to be
matter—of-fact, be cool, be calm and collected.

Believe it or not, most people take comfort in

that. Yeah, there’s some that will get even more

pissed off, but still, it just doesn’t pay for
you to get that way, too.

All of these skills underlying the use of discretion
are skills that bounty hunters identify as being essential
to the performance of their work. They are skills that are
combined and used in various ways depending on any given

circumstance, and any sort of regulation that is perceived

169

as interfering with the ways in which these skills can be
combined is generally seen by bounty hunters as not being
beneficial. For example, Pamela expressed concern in her
interview that licensing would hamper her use of discretion
that she sees as being so essential to her job:
Well, licensing in and of itself is not a bad
idea. The problem comes when you get some agency
trying to dictate what you can and can’t do.
There’s so many things that come up that it would
be impossible to say do this or do that. You
have to leave it to the discretion of the agent
to know what to do. So how can you judge if they
didn’t (h) it right—you weren’t there. Now some
things, yes, it’s clear they shouldn’t kxa done.
But I don’t know about licensing for things that
shouldn’t be done. What good would that do? But
enforcing training, yes, that can happen, and
should happen because that’s where time emphasis
needs to be.
This issue of agent discretion was present in the
responses of several interviewees. Clearly what each
of them was referring to was the ability to make de-

cisions and take action without having a prescription

170

for when or how to do it. Anna, who also writes

bonds, stated the following:
Just take the issue of controlling your emotions.
It’s essential in this job that you don’t
personalize what he [the fugitive] is or isn’t
doing. So you go after him, and let's say he’s
your own [bond]. Now I got into the [bonding]
business to help people. So it would be easy for
me to get mad when he takes off and doesn’t
appear like he’s supposed to. It’s like being
robbed in a way. But if I get mad, I can’t stay
clear headed, and then I can’t work the case as
well as I could otherwise. So what kind of
licensing' is (going to help in this situation?
Who’s going to be able to put together a manual
for lunv to keep cool? That’s just run: going to
happen. That’s something that is a part of your
personality, and if it isn’t, you learn to make
it part of your personality or you get out of the
business real quick.

Despite her skepticism about the ability of licensing to

help standardize all practices, she indicated strong

agreement with this item in her survey.

171

Respondents were also in general agreement (M=3.35)
that licensing at either the state or federal level would
increase the professionalism of agents. As Aiden put it:

It would help screen out some of these guys who

don’t have a clue about what they are doing. We

could better control who got into the profession
and at least have some idea of how many of us
there are doing this work. And that would come
with standardizing practices.
On the other hand, Jock indicated strong disagreement
with this item in his survey. He stated,

Look, you can try all you want. People are going

to do what they are going to do. You can’t have

someone out in the field trying to watch what you
are doing all the time and maybe second-guessing
it. A license to work is one thing. But one
thing leads to another and another and it’s hard
to reign in. You’re never going to get everyone
to do the same things the same way.

Lamar expressed his skepticism this way:

I think either one [licensing or registration] is

a good idea. th would really help In» I think,

weed out the bad ones who give us such a bad

reputation. But I have my concerns about who

172

would be responsible for regulating us. Any
regulating agency worth its salt must also help
an industry, not just go after it. Look at OSHA.
They can’t just be a watch-dog without providing
guidelines and the kind of help that industries
need to meet the guidelines. The ideal agency
would do as much consulting as monitoring. I
would want them. to be as concerned about the
welfare cof cnn: business as we are, not to be
there just to receive complaints. Plus, most of
the complaints would come from us anyway, not the
public. Like if someone was operating without a
license or registration or whatever. But when-
ever you get regulation started.cn1 the heels of
what we have been going through for the past
couple of years with all the bad press,
politicians are only interested in one thing—and
that’s showing their constituents that they are
taking action about a problem. That’s not the
kind of help this industry needs right now. That
would just create more problems than we already
have.
Ellen experience expressed her concern as it related to the

ability of agents to exercise discretion:

173

No amount of licensing and regulation is going to
standardize practices because we all work as
independent contractors. That’s different than a
lot of professions that are licensed—mostly those
employees work for an agency or a business. We
work for our own businesses. But what would help
standardize practices is standardizing education
and training, and that is something that the
state can help with. like, 1 emu against people
with criminal records themselves doing this work.
I don’t care what the offense was that they were
convicted of. You just don’t let the fox guard
the hen house. But with regulation, apart from
education and training, you don't want to impair
discretion. I know that that’s where the problem
is, really, with the 'use of <discretion, but I
think ii: is best addressed through education and
training, not through strong regulation that has
nothing to do with, or is impractical about
education and training.
Amman echoed these statements:

My concern is that we will have people regulating
us who don’t understand what we do or how we do

it—or maybe even why we do it. That would be a

174

big problem. Plus, this is ai;yfl3 that is highly
individualistic. It requires a lot of creativity
and initiative and I can see where regulation
could impair that. With some jobs, it doesn’t
matter—you could have a chimpanzee doing the job
and it would get done the same way every time no
matter who was doing it. But not this job. So
how would they regulate the job, which is what
they' would. really' be doing—regulating the job,
not the person—so that it would get done the same
way every time? I am in favor of having
standardized requirements for who can work in
this business, but Inn: for setting tflua specifics
of the job so that we are all trying to get the
job done while being handcuffed ourselves.

Jamie said this about licensing and registration:
Mostly, I am in favor of it. But here’s the
thing. It would really help us if there were
standardized requirements for working from state
to state because right now it’s hard having
different requirements in every state. So that
would be an argument for federal licensing. But
there’s a big problem with that and that is, what

federal agency do you know of that actually helps

175

enforcement agents.

in part,

an industry? Have you ever tried to get help
from a federal agency? Ever tried to get a
simple question answered? It’s impossible. So
the kind of help we need to structure things to
make it easier for us would come from the federal
government, but the day-to-day help we might need
from the feds would be impossible to get. So
that leaves us with being licensed at the state
level. The problem, of course, is that by being
licensed at the state level, every state has its
own requirements, pretty much like it is now. So
we are caught in a catch-22. Frankly, I don’t
know what to recommend to solve the problem.
Unless someone gets creative and allows for
standardizing state—by-state requirements, then
has a state agency for dealing with problems that
arise, or maybe have each state do its own
monitoring.

There was a much lower level of agreement (M=2.50)

to whether licensing bail enforcement agents could be

what they do is distinct from bail bonding. In fact, as

176

as

effective if bail bondsmen were not also licensed as bail
This lower level of agreement stems,

from the perception survey respondents have that

one agent noted, this arrangement might actually hurt his
business, as bail bondsmen might be more likely to pursue
their own skips under such an arrangement.

While there appears to be general agreement that there
would be benefits to licensing and regulation, most of the
agents interviewed appeared cautious in their support of
licensing or registration at either the federal or state
level for fear that it would impact on their use of
discretion in carrying out their work.

Given these varying views on licensing and registra-
tion, I decided to examine the survey data to see if these
differences were related to the level of experience an
agent had working as a bounty hunter (Table 19).

T—tests were constructed in an attempt to analyze
whether there were differences in attitudes between agents
with varying levels of experience. Thus, survey respon-
dents were categorized into two groups-those who had less
than five Years of experience, and those who had five or
more years of experience. Rating categories for each item
were Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3), and
Strongly Agree (4). Mean scores for each item were com-
puted for agents with less than five years of experience
and agents with five or more years of experience by summing

the assigned value of each of the responses and dividing by

177

the number of scores summed. Lower mean scores represented
lesser agreement with an item. Independent-sample t-tests
were used to investigate between group differences for
agents with less than five years of experience and those
who had more than five years of experience regarding their
views on licensing and registration.

As shown in Table 20, the groups did not significantly
differ with respect to their attitudes about the role bail
enforcement agents play in the criminal justice system, or
about the impact of licensing and registration on their
occupation.

Despite the lack of statistically significant dif—
ferences between the groups, it is of interest to note that
agents with five years of experience or more were in
slightly stronger agreement on most of the items than were
agents with less than five years of experience. For
example, agents with more five years of experience or more
tended to be in stronger agreement (M=3.70) than agents
with less than five years of experience (M=3.66) that bail
enforcement agents play an important role in the criminal
justice system. They were also in slightly stronger agree-
ment (M=2.66) than less experienced agents ((M=2.56) that
federal licensure should be required for bail enforcement

agents.

178

Table 20. Comparison of Attitudes About Licensing and Registration for
Agents With Less Than Five Years of Experience and Agents With Five or
More Years of Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item # Issue Agent Group
< 5 Years 5+ Years
(N=70) (N=70)
Mean (Sd.) Mean (Sd.) E

Q. 54 (Role) 3.66 ( .61) 3.70 ( .98) t(138)= — .31, n.s.
Q. 55 (Profession) 3.66 ( .63) 3.66 ( .93) t(138)= .00, n.s.
Q. 56 (Federal

License) 2.56 (1.13) 2.66 (1.49) t(138)= - .45, n.s.
Q. 57 (State

License) 2.89 (1.08) 2.91 (1.21) t(138)= - .15, n.s.
Q. 58 (Federal

Register) 2.71 (1.14) 2.74 (1.30) t(138)= - .14, n.s.
Q. 59 (State

Register) 2.96 (1.08) 3.13 (1.06) t(138)= - .95, n.s.
Q. 60 (Professional

View) 3.39 ( .91) 3.43 (1.03) t(138)= — .27, n.s.
Q. 61 (Standardize

Practices) 3.27 ( .80) 3.37 (1.24) t(138)= - .57, n.s.
Q. 62 (Professional) 3.30 ( .82) 3.37 (1.24) t(138)= - .42, n.s.
Q. 63 (Financial

Gain) 2.96 (1.26) 2.96 (1.66) t(138)= .00, n.s.
Q. 64 (License

Bondsmen) 2.27 (1.21) 2.64 (1.66) t(138)= -1.51, n.s.

 

Although not statistically significant, the largest
difference between more experienced agents (M=2.64) and
agents with less experience ((M=2.27) was on item
#64—Licensing bail enforcement agents would not be ef-
fective unless bail bondsmen were also licensed as bail
enforcement agents. Despite stronger disagreement between
the two groups on this item, it is of note that all agents
generally indicated disagreement with this issue. There
were two items where the level of agreement was the same
for both groups—item #55 (“Bail enforcement should be

considered a ‘professional’ occupation” [M=3.66]) and item

179

#63 (“Licensing bail enforcement agents [at either the
state or federal level] would increase the professionalism
of bail enforcement agents [M=32.96]).

An attempt was also made to explore whether there were
differences between how members of these two groups rated
the importance of a variety of factors in making a fugitive
recovery (Table 20). Rating categories for each item were
Very Important (1), Somewhat Important (2), Somewhat
Unimportant (3), and Very Unimportant (4). Mean scores for
each item were computed for agents with less than five
years of experience and agents with five or more years of
experience by summing the assigned value of each of the
responses and dividing by the number of scores summed.
Lower mean scores represented greater importance.
Independent-sample t-tests were used to investigate between
group differences for agents with less than five years of
experience and those who had more than five years of
experience regarding their views on licensing and
regulation. As can be seen in Table 21, the groups did not
significantly differ with regard to how important they
rated these factors in helping them to effect a successful
recovery; however, agents with more than five years of

experience consistently rated these factors as being less

180

important in effecting a recovery than agents with less

than five years of experience.

Table 21. Comparison of Levels of Importance of Factors Considered
When Effecting a Fugitive Recovery

 

 

 

Item # Issue Agent Group
< 5 Years 5+ Years
(N=70) (N=70)
Mean (Sd.) Mean (Sd.) t

 

 

Nature of the Bond

 

 

Q. 46a (Offense) 1.56 (1.06) 1.97 (1.26) t(138)= -2.10, n.s.
Q. 46b (History) 1.79 ( .85) 2.03 (1.18) t(138)= -1.40, n.s.
Q. 46f (Reason) 2.16 (1.06) 2.24 (1.23) t(138)= — .44, n.s.
Q. 46g (In/out

of state) 2.16 (1.06) 2.44 (1.24) t(138)= -1.47, n.s.
Q. 46h (Bonded to) 1.80 (1.18) 2.07 (1.26) t(138)= —1.32, n.s.
Fugitive Characteristics
Q. 46c (Physical) 1.43 ( .81) 1.73 (1.24) t(138)= -1.70, n.s.
Q. 46d (Lifestyle) 1.41 (1.06) 1.53 (1.13) t(138)= - .62, n.s.
Q. 46e (Criminal

History) 1.26 ( .63) 1.51 (1.13) t(138)= -1.67, n.s.
Q. 46i (Danger) 1.23 ( .64) 1.50 ( .85) t(138)= -2.14, n.s.

 

Table 21 also shows that more experienced agents
rated the nature of the offense as being less important
(M=1.97) than did agents with less than five years of
experience (M=1.56). Further, more experienced agents also
rate the importance of where the fugitive has bonded out to
as being less important (M=2.07) than did agents with less
experience (M=1.80). Despite these differences, both
groups generally reported that each of the factors were
somewhat important overall in their ability to effect a

recovery.

181

Survey respondents were also asked to rate the
importance of a variety of skills and personality traits in
making a fugitive recovery. Survey respondents were again
categorized into two groups—those who had less than five
years of experience, and those who had five or more years
of experience. Rating categories for each item were Very
Important (1), Somewhat Important (2), Somewhat Unimportant
(3), and Very Unimportant (4). Mean scores for each item
were computed for agents with less than five years of
experience and agents with five or more years of experience
by summing the assigned value of each of the responses and
dividing by the number of scores summed. Lower mean scores
represented greater importance. Independent-sample t-tests
were used to investigate between group differences for
agents with less than five years of experience and those
who had more than five years of experience regarding their
views on licensing and regulation.

As shown in Table 22, the groups did not differ with
respect to the importance they assign to the skills and
personality traits they use when effecting a recovery.

Like other factors involved in the process of a recovery,
these skills and traits are generally more important to
agents with less than five years of experience than they

are to agents with five or more years of experience. For

182

example, the ability to use effective communication skills
was rated less important (M=1.21) for agents with five
years of experience or more than it was for agents with
less than five years of experience (M=1.01). Similarly,
the ability to blend into a variety of different environ-
ments is also viewed by more experienced agents as being
less important ((M=1.39) than it is for less experienced
agents (M=1.13). Further, having the ability to know how
and when to use weapons is similarly less important
(M=1.31) for experienced agents than it is for less

experienced agents (Mé1.11).

Table 22. Comparison of Levels of Importance of Skills and Personality
Traits Used When Effecting a Fugitive Recovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item # Issue Agent Group

< 5 Years 5+ Years

(N=70) (N=70‘

Mean (Sd.) Mean (Sd.) E
Q. 49a (Communication) 1.01 ( .12) 1.21( .93) t(138)= -1.78, n.s
Q. 49b (Patience) 1.04 ( .20) 1.20( .93) t(138)= -1.39, n.s
Q. 49c (Curiosity) 1.23 ( .89) 1.44(l.03) t(138)= —1.32, n.s
Q. 49d (Read Cues) 1.06 ( .23) 1.20( .93) t(138)= -1.25, n.s
Q. 49e (Gray Areas) 1.60 (1.30) 1.81(1.41) t(138)= - .94, n.s
Q. 49f (Adaptability) 1.13 ( .34) 1.39(1.00) t(138)= -2.04, n.s
Q. 49g (Who To Talk To) 1.04 ( .20) 1.34( .96) t(138)= —2.55, n.s
Q. 49h (Records) 1.21 ( .45) 1.50(1.03) t(138)= -2.13, n.s
Q. 49i (Listen) 1.06 ( .23) 1.24( .94) t(138)= -1.61, n.s
Q. 49j (Weapons) 1.11 ( .36) 1.31( .96) t(138)= —1.64, n.s
Q. 49k (Stamina) 1.40 (1.37) 1.59(1.07) t(138)= - .90, n.s

 

Despite the lack of significant differences between
the groups, however, it is of note that both groups

generally identified each of the skills and personality

183

traits as being at least somewhat important in successfully
capturing a fugitive.
CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has provided data description and
analysis that informs our knowledge about who bounty
hunters are, what they do, and how they do it. It has also
examined the views of bounty hunters regarding licensing
and regulation of their occupation. The data analysis in
this chapter provides a comparison of the views of bounty
hunters who have different levels of experience. Specifi-
cally, it examines the levels of importance agents with
less than five years experience and agents with five or
more years of experience assign to a variety of factors.
Among these factors are those associated with the nature of
the bond and fugitive characteristics, as well as those
related to specific skills and techniques bounty hunters
possess. While there is a general lack of statistical
significance between the two groups, there are some de-
scriptive differences which suggest that more experienced
agents generally identify specific traits as being less

important than their less experienced counterparts.

184

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSS ION

Media accounts of bounty hunter conduct only appear to
capture the most dramatic incidences of bounty hunter
misconduct, thereby giving the impression that members of
this occupational group are a rag—tag bunch of untrained,
uneducated, and unskilled cop-wannabes whose own criminal
histories are as bad as those of the fugitives they are
chasing. They also present them as being in dire need of
regulation in order to prevent the kind of highly-
sensationalized misconduct previously discussed. As the
data in this study suggest, this may not be the case at
all.

The use of qualitative methods in this study has
allowed me to explore bounty hunter conduct and opinions in
a context that otherwise would not be available. Despite
my attempts to survey nearly a thousand people who had
either self—identified as bounty hunters or who had com-
pleted bounty hunter training, this effort was not
realized. The survey response rate, even after a follow-up
mailing, was less than desirable. I acknowledge, there-
fore, that many of my conclusions and my discussion of

them, must be viewed with those limitations in mind.

185

Despite the limitations imposed by the relatively
small sample number (N=147), I believe that the quanti-

‘ tative data helps to inform our view of who bounty hunters
are and the work they do. It was important, however, that
the quantitative data be given contextual support, and this
was done using qualitative data. It is the qualitative
analysis that gives both the bounty hunters and their
activities life throughout this study.

Generally, this study sought to examine who bounty
hunters are, what they do, and how they do it. Specifi-
cally, it sought to answer the following questions: (1)
what are the personal backgrounds and work experiences of
bounty hunters? (2) what is the process by which they
identify and employ situational factors in effecting a
fugitive recovery? and (3) what are their views regarding
licensing and regulation of their occupation. The major
conclusions drawn from the data in this study have
implications in four broad areas:

1) Bounty hunting as a profession

2) The establishment of “best practices” that can be
facilitated and monitored through licensing and regulation
3) The role of private sector employees in the criminal
justice system

3) Adult learning strategies

186

More specific conclusions drawn in this study are discussed
within the context of these broad areas. 8

1) Bounty hunting as a profession

a) Bounty hunters are an occupational group who

share an occupational identity, and who are trained,
educated, and skilled in the work they do.

It is no surprise that respondents in this study were
predominantly white males. Whether there was something
unique about these men that motivated them to participate
in research such as this, or whether the occupation is, in
fact, dominated by these demographics is a question that
cannot be definitively answered. It is important to note,
however, that the dominance of this demographic has the
potential to dominate the perspective of this research.
While every attempt was made to include a variety of
perspectives on the issues addressed in this study, the
small number of respondents did not make this possible.

In addition to the dominance of the white male
perspective, it is also of note that survey respondents
were predominantly married and had some college. Just over
one-third of respondents had household incomes above
$75,000. Most (62.2%) were over age 45. In addition,
nearly half of the respondents identified as “moderate” in
their political stance. Only 15 of the 147 respondents

reported that they had ever been convicted of a crime, and

187

only one of these fifteen reported that he had been
convicted of a felony (grand theft auto). Among the types
of misdemeanors for which they reported being arrested were
possession of marijuana, larceny, disorderly conduct, and
OUIL. It is of note that one respondent reported being
convicted of official misconduct.

It is clear from the data that most bounty hunters
work at fugitive recovery only part-time. The majority
(51.7%) reported that they spend less than 25% of their
total work time in bail enforcement activities. As
previously noted, however, this part-time status appears to
be due primarily to the nature of bail bonding. Despite
the part-time nature of their business, the majority
(60.5%) of respondents reported that they owned their own
bail enforcement business. Of the respondents who own
their own business, the largest majority (34.7%) reported
that they hired other agents on an as-needed basis. Fur-
ther, the work that bounty hunters reported doing to earn
income other than that which they earn from bail enforce-
ment is extremely varied. The occupations identified by
respondents included, but were not limited to, boat
captain, security supervisor, computer technician, and
pastor.

The majority of respondents reported that their

188

state of residence did not require either licensing or
registration. Despite the lack of licensing and regis-
tration requirements, and in spite of it being a part—time
occupation, most respondents reported that they possessed
at least one occupational license related to their bail
enforcement work. Among these occupations were private
investigator, bail bondsman, bail enforcement agent, and
vehicle repossession agent.

It is also of note that even though many states do not
require agents to be licensed or registered, an overwhelm—
ing majority have completed the training offered by at
least one training institute. Among the control tech-
niques they reported being trained in were firearms
safety/use, pressure point control tactics, verbal judo,
caning, fast handcuffing, and personal (executive) pro-
tection. Further, nearly half of the respondents spent at
least six months gaining on-the-job training from a more
experienced agent.

As expected, respondents reported that the largest
majority of their referrals came from bail bondsmen. Other
major sources of referrals included other bail enforcement
agents, law enforcement, and relatives of defendants.

By and large, bounty hunters are educated, and do

attend training institutes. Eighty-one percent of

189

participants had a least some college, and the vast
majority had attended at least one training institute. In
addition to learning specific skills and techniques while
participating in these institutes, they also learn the
shared norms that dominate how bounty hunters go about
doing their work. Among the techniques they learn are how
to establish and maintain physical control over indi-
viduals, how to perform a variety of tasks such as using
databases and ruses, and how to conduct surveillance. They
also learn about the relationship between bounty hunting
and bail bonding, as well as the various laws that apply to
their conduct in each of the states. Nearly half reported
that they had also received on-the-job training with an
experienced agent.

There is also sufficient evidence to suggest that
bounty hunting as an occupation does meet the minimal
criteria for a profession. Clearly, there is a set of
shared expectations for bounty hunter conduct and this
helps bounty hunters to establish a common identity and
sense of purpose as members of an occupational group.

There is also a formalized code of ethics that is taught in
the training institutes that acts as a guide for bounty
hunter conduct in the field. Overall, the demographic

characteristics of bounty hunters identified in this study

190

stand in stark contrast to those presented in the media.

As such, they describe members of an occupational group who
possess a set of skills and traits that characterize the
work they do. Having said this, it is also important to
note that not all members of the occupation participate in
training that imparts these skills and traits. Further,
information on the type and quality of the training bounty
hunters do receive is lacking. Thus, the lack of systematic
participation by members of the occupation, the lack of a
mandate for such participation, and the lack of standardi-
zation of training call into serious doubt whether this
occupation can be considered a profession. Until these
issues can be more thoroughly documented, it will remain
difficult to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether
this occupational group constitutes a profession.

b) Bounty hunters systematically employ a variety of
skills and techniques that allow them to be effective in
recovering fugitives.

While the conduct of bounty hunters may appear to
outside observers to be governed by a “get your man at any
and all costs” mentality, this research indicates this is
not the case. In fact, this research indicates that con-
trary to popular opinion, bounty hunters are very delib-

erative and systematic in their behaviors, spending much of

191

their time and resources on setting up the recovery within
the guidelines of civic and legal liability.
Stosh put it:
Hey, this is my business [emphasis his]. Why in
the world would I want to jeopardize my career
and everything I have worked for just for the
supposed thrill of kicking ljléa door? I can no
more afford to do that than I can afford to drive
the wrong way' on the interstate just for the
thrill of it. That would be ridiculous. People
who do that kind of stuff, they just don’t know
what they’re doing. Ninety-nine percent (If the
time there’s a better way to go about it
[effecting a recovery].
As described by several agents, the recovery itself can be
anti-climactic, coming after hours, weeks, and sometimes
months of research and planning. In fact, the interview
data support a strong desire on the part of bounty hunters
to avoid having to be physically aggressive during a
recovery.
Using constructed knowledge, bounty hunters syste-
matically identify and prioritize a number of different
factors that help structure the way in which they search

for and recover fugitives. Among these factors are

patience, the ability to read verbal and non-verbal cues,
and the effective use of communication. It is, however, of
note that the unique ways in which the knowledge is
constructed makes it appear at times as though bounty
hunters operate in a non-systematic, if not haphazard, way.

There are a number of other factors that bounty
hunters consider when effecting a recovery that have to do
with the characteristics of the offender and the offense.
Among these characteristics are the nature of the offense,
the physical characteristics of the fugitive, the criminal
history of the fugitive, the fugitive’s lifestyle, and the
physical danger perceived to be present in an environment.
Interestingly, these characteristics are used as much to
inform the bounty hunter about the fugitive’s whereabouts
as they are to guide him in how to make the actual
recovery.

Data from this study indicate that less experienced
agents may rely more heavily on characteristics associated
with the fugitive and the offense to effect a recovery than
more experienced agents do. One possible explanation for
this reliance on these factors is that less experienced
agents have a more limited knowledge base than experienced
agents, who have had more time to broaden both their

knowledge and their skills. Consequently, agents with less

193

experience tend to rely on “tangible” information (e.g.,
nature of the offense, physical characteristics of the
fugitive, and where the fugitive has bonded out to) to
guide their actions. Conversely, more experienced agents
may rely more heavily on knowledge that has accumulated
over years of experience. This experiential knowledge may
indicate a particular course of action, even when the
“tangible” information might indicate otherwise. Similarly,
the factors identified in Table 21 and the skills and
traits identified in Table 22 may be considered more
important by less experienced agents because of the
relative difference in cumulative knowledge gained through
time and experience.

Interview data from bounty hunters demonstrate that
bounty hunters do engage in individual constructivism, and
that they can clearly articulate the ways in which factors
are assessed and combined to form an emerging picture of
where the fugitive is and how to go about the recovery. In
addition, these factors are assessed for their ability to
help the bounty hunter limit his civil and legal liability.
Because much of the work involved in a recovery occurs
behind the scenes, it is frequently devalued by other
agents in the criminal justice system, and outright ignored

by the media and the general public. Thus, the popular

194

notion that bounty hunters are not skilled in the way they
go about there work is misguided at best, and disparagingly
uninformed at worst.

C) Bounty hunters favor regulation of their occupation.

The popular notion that bounty hunter misconduct is a
result of a failure to regulate the industry has resulted
in a host of legislation being proposed over the past
several years to regulate their conduct. This legislation
has primarily focused on establishing criteria for who may
become a bounty hunter, and suggests that controlling
admission to the occupation will help eliminate misconduct.
Both the survey and the interview data suggest that bounty
hunters do favor controls on both admission to and practice
in the occupation, particularly as they relate to require-
ments for training and education. The preferred method of
regulation appears to be state registration because it is
identifed as being more “user-friendly” than federal regis-
tration or licensure. Respondents expressed concern that
the benefits of federal registration would be outweighed by
the lack of helpfulness a federal agency could effectively
and efficiently give the occupation.

2) The establishment of “best practices” that can be

facilitated and monitored through licensing and
regulation

195

a) Support for the creation of “best practices” is
tempered by skepticism that governmental regulation is the
appropriate mechanism.

The results of this research suggest that, while
bounty hunters do support regulation, they are skeptical
about the implementation of meaningful regulation for three
primary reasons. First is their concern with regulation
that is grounded in good theory, but will not work in
practice. For example, they are concerned about any form
of regulation, including licensure, that would constrain
the application of their skills and techniques any more
than they already are. They expressed concern, for
example, about being prohibited from entering a residence
without first knocking on the door. Given that the nature
of the offense for which the fugitive is being sought is
absconding, this required “warning” would make it much more
difficult to capitalize on the element of surprise, which
they define as being so critical in their work. It is also
feared that this type of regulation might also interfere
with the nature of the bondsman-bounty hunter relationship,
and might have significant implications for whether bonds-
men choose to write bonds. As noted previously, bondsmen
essentially enter into a private business arrangement with
defendants, and in so doing, require that the address they

bond to become part of this arrangement. This gives the

196

bondsman the right to enter the property in the event that
they defendant fails to fulfill his obligation to the
bondsman. It gives the bondsman a tool by which to recover
the defendant in the event he absconds, and also gives the
bounty hunter access to the fugitive when he is hiding in
his own home.

Second, bounty hunters expressed concern about the
impact of regulation on the amount of discretion they use
in conducting their work, and in how this discretion is
applied. That is, they expressed fear that regulation
would impede their discretion, making it more difficult to
apprehend fugitives. They expressed concern that they would
be limited as to the techniques and skills they use in
effecting a recovery (i.e., not be able to use ruses or
pretext calls). They reported a belief that the unique
nature of their jobs necessitates that they have broad
latitude in how they exercise discretion.

A third area of concern regarding licensing and
regulation is related to the perceptions bounty hunters
have of government bureaucracies as inefficient and in-
effective. Respondents believed that standardizing prac-
tices within the occupation could help others to View them
as professionals. It is of note, however, that bounty

hunters also expressed considerable doubt about the

197

government’s ability to help do this in a way that they
defined as helpful to their occupation, especially if the
efforts were made at the federal level. Several respon—
dents spoke to the benefit the occupation would gain from
standardizing conduct requirements across the states.
Especially noted was the benefit of not having to learn the
different laws in each of the states when tracking a
fugitive cross-country. Despite recognition of this
benefit as a way to help standardize conduct and practice,
most respondents were skeptical about the government’s
ability to assist them with this task.

b) Respondents overwhelmingly support the involvement of
the occupation in discussions with the government about any
efforts to regulate their occupation.

While skeptical about the effects of licensing and
regulation on their occupation, interview data suggests
that bounty hunters do support the involvement of the
occupation in discussions to establish regulatory criteria.
One concern of bounty hunters is the notion that theirs is
a highly misunderstood occupation that has historically had
a bad reputation, and that it is this reputation that
dominates the thinking of legislators and the general
public. Consequently, they express an eagerness to

participate in a dialog with legislators and others to

enlighten them about the work they do. The willingness of

198

legislators and others to be enlightened, however, is
tempered by their own bias. One agent reported that almost
all of his efforts to educate legislators and law
enforcement personnel about the role of bounty hunters had
been rebuffed:
Oh, Christ, I can’t tell you the pages and pages
and pages of material I have prepared for people
and sent it in) there (to time state legislature)
only to get there to talk with them and find out
they haven't even read anything—not anything—that
I sent them. I have given tfluxn all kinds of
statistics and information to try to help them
understand what it is we do and they just aren’t
interested. But every time they get wind that
somebody has done something wrong, up goes the
red flag and everyone runs around trying to
figure out what the next best solution is. Same
thing with the Sheriff. He promised he would be
at a presentation I was giving here in town and
never showed up. Hell, I finally gave up. It
got to be a waste of my time and money.
This sense of frustration with trying to educate
others about their work appears to dominate the

efforts of bounty hunters, and this, along with the

199

bias they encounter in their efforts, appears to serve
as an impediment to improved dialog between the two
groups.

3) The role of private sector actors in the criminal
justice system

As private contractors in the public criminal justice
system, bounty hunters play a unique role in our efforts to
bring people to justice. That they are granted their
powers in this system by a Supreme Court ruling makes their
position even more unique. Bounty hunters have been
granted wide latitude in both their powers and in the ways
they go about exercising them. While there has been
considerable debate in the legal literature about whether
bounty hunters ought to be considered public actors, for
now, at least, they are generally not treated as such by
the criminal justice system. Thus, they are not con-
strained by the same constitutional goals or methods of
public law enforcement personnel, and do not have as the
deterrence of crime as their goal. This allows them to
focus their efforts solely on recovery work and underlies
their position as private entrepreneurs in a public system.

Survey and interview data suggest that the impact of
bounty hunting on other components of the criminal justice

system is widespread. The work bounty hunters do to

200

recover fugitives frees up public law enforcement personnel
to focus on crime prevention and control, and supports a
private system of bail bonding that frees up jail space.
Although the work of bounty hunting is primarily related to
the business concerns of bail bondsmen, it is primarily
through this relationship that it remains intricately tied
to policing, courts and corrections.

Licensing and other forms of regulation that impact on
bounty hunting necessarily impact on the other components
of the criminal justice system. Without a mechanism for
“enforcing” the bonds they write, bail bondsmen would be
much less likely to write bonds and fewer people absconding
on bail would be returned to the court for the adminis-
tration of justice. This could have the effect of in-
creasing crime as absconders are left free to commit new
crimes, having no fear that they will be actively pursued
for having failed to appear in the courts.

In addition to their impact in the areas of bond
enforcement, policing, corrections, and the courts, bounty
hunters also have the potential to impact on other impor-
tant areas of our justice system. They could, for example,
make substantial contributions in the areas of domestic and
foreign terrorism and immigration. They could also be used

extensively to search for fugitives (especially sex

201

offenders) whom state and federal law enforcement have not
been successful in locating.

4) Adult Learning Strategies

a) Understanding the process by which bounty hunters come
to learn how to do their work helps inform our knowledge
about adult learning in the workplace.

One of the major criticisms of bounty hunters has been
their apparent lack of a systematic knowledge base that
serves as a foundation for the application of a specific
set of skills in the workplace. One helpful strategy for
understanding how bounty hunters go about their work is to
understand the situational factors they identify that
inform their decision making. As noted previously, bounty
hunters form scripts about events that serve to guide their
actions. Some of these scripts are solitary in their
existence, while others are inherently connected to other
scripts. Bounty hunters employ these scripts in an attempt
to make sense of their environment and of the events that
are occurring within the environment. These scripts serve
bounty hunters in two ways. First, they serve to inform
the bounty hunter as to which knowledge to draw upon in any
given situation. This knowledge informs the bounty hunter
of a variety of factors present in the environment (includ-
ing the potential for danger). Second, scripts serve as

scaffolding for decision-making, with each successive

202

“tier” offering some new, cumulative support for a
particular action.

Interview data in this study suggest that bounty
hunters use both declarative and procedural knowledge in
their decision-making process. It also suggests that
effecting a recovery requires kneading both kinds of
knowledge into a blended schema.

In addition to their use of schemas to inform their
knowledge about situations, bounty hunters engage in re-
defining a situation based on new information received
about it. This may be because of the nature of the work
they do, which can be extremely unpredictable even under
the best of circumstances and with the utmost preparation.
As noted previously, bounty hunters work under potentially
volatile circumstances that involve dealing with people who
are experiencing high levels of stress. Redefining events
and objects in their environment helps bounty hunters to
revise an old schema or develop a new one based on new
information or new interpretations of old information. If
bounty hunters fail to develop this ability to restructure,
it may impede their ability to be successful in making
fugitive recoveries. This is consistent with the work of
Merriam and Caffarella (1999), wherein they state that “If

we are unable to change our earlier thought patterns (that

203

is, fine-tune or restructure them), our chances of being
able to frame and act on problems from a different
perspective are remote, if not impossible” (p. 205-206).

b) Understanding how bounty hunters come to learn their
work has implications for training and education.

The data in this study suggest that bounty hunters do,
in fact, participate in training and education. While most
of this training has been obtained through their formal
participation at bail enforcement institutes, some of the
respondents indicated that they had received on-the-job
(OTJ) training. While the nature and extent of this OTJ
training varied between one month and twenty-four months,
most reported they had participated in this type of
training for at least three months. As previously noted,
this type of training provides an excellent forum for
learning both declarative as well as procedural knowledge.
It also affords the learner the opportunity to receive
immediate feedback, and is as learner-centered as it is
information—centered.

Training that takes place within the confines of
formal organizations such as training institutes also
offers opportunities for bounty hunters to gain both
declarative and procedural information. These institutes

not only teach specific skills and techniques (such as how

204

to conduct surveillance, how to be a good listener, and how
to use control techniques), but also teach under what
circumstances the skills and techniques should be used.

The contextual aspect of this process facilitates knowledge
transfer that helps bounty hunters be more effective in
their work.

Education that takes place in formal organizations
such as training institutes is also both information-
centered and learner-centered. Respondents reported that
they had received education regarding both civil and
criminal law as it applies to liability and the consti-
tutional foundations for their conduct. They also reported
receiving education regarding the limits of their author-
ity, prohibited behavioral practices, and how to interact
with law enforcement personnel. Like the training they
receive, their education also places a strong emphasis on
knowledge transfer. Respondents in this study reported
that this transfer of knowledge was a skill important to
the success of their work. Therefore, future efforts
designed to provide continuing education for bounty hunters
would benefit from structuring programs that focus on the
learner's ability to transfer information knowledge to

procedural knowledge.

205

c) Understanding how bounty hunters come to learn their
work has implications for licensing and regulation.

Much of the criticism of bounty hunters has centered
on their perceived lack of training and education. As a
result, legislation that has been introduced in the past
eight years has focused on requiring minimal levels of
training and education, and on creating administrative
oversight to monitor bounty hunter participation.

One of the benefits of regulation identified by
respondents in this study was of enforced training and
education. Regulators interested in structuring legisla—
tion to address this issue can benefit from an enhanced
understanding of the ways in which bounty hunters come to
learn what their work is and how it is performed. Further,
legislation directed at requiring and/or providing certi—
fying and continuing education for bounty hunters should
have as its focus both declarative and procedural know-
ledge. This could serve to standardize the information and
practices that bounty hunters generally support as being
essential to the long-term survival of their occupation.
Further, drafting such legislation would maximize its
effectiveness in reducing misconduct if it was developed,
at least in some part, from the constructed knowledge

already shared by bounty hunters. Legislation drafted by

206

politicians with little or no understanding of the work
lives of bounty hunters received little support from bounty
hunters. Dane elaborated on his belief that regulation
would benefit the occupation as a whole, but only if it
included input from members of the occupation:
It's [bounty hunter opposition] mostly about the
fact that nobody—other than maybe bondsmen—really
understands what we do. I think if they took the
time to listen to us and really get to know who
we are, they wouldn't have such a low opinion of
us. Especially cops. People take ea look at IRS
and see that the only monitoring that is done is
by ourselves, and they think, hey, they can do
whatever they want. And really, we pretty much
can. But this job requires a unique attitude and
outlook and that would be hard to monitor. But
they cxnflri monitor~ whether' ‘people attended
training, whether they had any complaints against
them, etcetera. Even. though tjua association I
belong to monitors this now, there's no real
teeth in it. But if this was all that licensing
did, I think it 'would still bring some
credibility to the profession that we don't have

right now.

207

Understanding who bounty hunters are and what they do have
important consequences for efforts to license or otherwise
regulate them. Results of this research call into question
previous assumptions made about members of this occupation
and suggest that previous attempts to regulate their
conduct may have been shortsighted.

In proposing legislation to regulate their conduct,
lawmakers have assumed that there were no standardized
practices guiding the actions of bounty hunters. This
assumption is contradicted by this research. Further, law-
makers have assumed that bounty hunter misconduct is a
prevalent phenomenon that is best addressed through the
enactment of sweeping legislation to establish criteria for
becoming a bounty hunter. Among the criteria being estab-
lished are those related to training and education. In
enacting such legislation, it was widely assumed that
bounty hunters would oppose the establishment of such
criteria. This research suggests that this is not the
case. In fact, as the Director of one privately-owned
training institute stated, “We strongly encourage training,
of course, but not just because it is our business. Any
time there is an incident involving misconduct it hurts all

of us” (Hewett).

208

What is currently missing from the debate regarding
regulation of bounty hunters is a dialogue between law-
makers and bounty hunters themselves. Because of this, key
contributions of bounty hunters to the criminal justice
system are ignored. Subsequently, legislation blankets the
entire occupation without a clear understanding of how
pervasive the problem of misconduct really is. If a
dialogue existed between bounty hunters and lawmakers it
would become readily apparent that they share a common
goal: to reduce the number of incidents involving abuse of
discretion and excessive use of force. In addition, law-
makers would be able to write and enact legislation having
had the “inside View” of bounty hunting. Perhaps most
importantly, they would have access to information that
describes the impact of bounty hunting on other functions
of the criminal justice system—especially courts and
corrections. Better understanding this impact could also
lead to new partnerships with other agents of the criminal
justice system to address problems that we are unable to
address with our current resources. Skilled bounty hunters
could, for example, assist in locating sex offenders,
missing persons, or federal fugitives for a fraction of the
price currently being spent on traditional law enforcement

methods.

209

A dialogue with bounty hunters would also encourage
lawmakers to include bounty hunters in developing solutions
to identified problems within the occupation. It could,
for example, help address the issue of people who practice
with no training, few skills, or no concern for criminal or
civil liability. In essence, it could eliminate the pres-
ence of the “rogue entrepreneur” who has little or no
regard for established practice. This might have the
consequence of standardizing and strengthening training
standards for the occupation. Recent legislation designed
to limit who may enter the occupation does not serve these
purposes.

Establishing clear, reasonable guidelines for bounty
hunter conduct would help bounty hunters to limit their
criminal and civil liability. The key to such guidelines,
however, is that they protect the public yet support the
bounty hunter in fugitive recovery operations. While many
View Taylor v. Taintor as an anachronism in today’s legal
world, it is clear that it continues to dominate as the
source of legal authority for bounty hunter conduct. Al-
though the nature of bail bonding has not changed in
several hundred years, it may be time for bounty hunters to
revisit the wisdom of relying almost entirely on this legal

ruling for the source of their authority. Legislation that

210

was rooted in an appreciation for the role of bounty
hunters in the criminal justice system could serve to
establish new justification for their authority, stan-
dardize their practices, and improve their performance.
Data obtained from participants in this research
suggests that bounty hunters do support regulation of their
occupation. They are, however, skeptical about broad—
ranging legislation that comes in response to egregious
acts by a handful of bounty hunters that they do not iden—
tify as being representative of their occupation. This may
be the reason why they favor registration over licensure,
and why they favor it at the state level instead of the
federal level. Further, they express a desire for legis-
lation that standardizes practices from state-to-state, but
also provides for monitoring and assistance that is easily
accessible and does not present a bureaucratic barrier to
their work performance. Establishing a dialogue between
legislators and bounty hunters would go a long way toward
resolving the tension between the old View of the bounty
hunter as uneducated, untrained and unskilled, and the new
View that has the bounty hunter as a professional agent
whose function compliments that of other criminal justice

functions.

21]

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This study has provided insight into the day—to-day
lives of bounty hunters. It has challenged widely-held
assumptions about who bounty hunters are and what they do.
In doing so, it has provided documentation of the personal
and professional backgrounds of bounty hunters, as well as
the skills and traits they possess. It has examined how
they learn to use these skills and traits to identify and
employ situational factors relevant to effecting a suc-
cessful recovery. It has also shed light on the impli—
cations this learning process has for education and train—
ing, as well as licensing and regulation.

The results of this study have also generated several
suggestions for increasing the participation of bounty
hunters in the regulation process, and for ways in which
regulation can be of benefit to the bounty hunting
occupation. Results also suggest ways in which regulation
can assist the occupation in resolving the tensions that
currently exist between it and the other components of the

criminal justice system.

212

APPENDICES

213

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEWEE PSEUDONYMS

214

PSEUDONYM
1. Rand
2. Art

3. Aiden
4. Cash
5. Matteo

6. Keenan

7. Rad

8. Hunter
9. Mitch
10. Brady
11. Raj
12. Amman
13. Anna
14. Jorge
15. Doogie
16. Ford
17. Kurt
18. Sarge
19. Teddy
20. Ben
21. Markus
22. Sonny
23. Bud
24. Archie
25. Ellen
26. Richie
27. Jamie

GENDER

RACE

215

EXPERIENCE

 

< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
5—10 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
5—10 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
> 10 years
< 5 years

5-10 years

m

Midwest
South
South
South
South
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
West
South
Northeast
South
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
West
Midwest

Northeast

PSEUDONYM
28. Jasper
29. Jake
30. Carlos
31. Justin
32. Cameron
33. Hurley
34. Link
35. Ralph
36. Gabe
37. Fannie
38. Max
39. Enrique
40. Garth
41. Jock
42. Caz
43. Donny
44. Hank
45. Stosh
46. Tracy
47. Mikey
48. Price
49. Cal
50. Jimmie
51. Toby
52. Juan
53. Logan
54. Grover
55. Pamela

63311235

RACE

E} E 1% 13 S

S

216

EXPERIENCE

 

< 5 years

5-10 years
5-10 years
> 10 years
5—10 years
> 10 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
> 10 years
> 10 years
5-10 years
5-10 years
> 10 years
> 10 years
> 10 years
5-10 years
5-10 years
5-10 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
< 5 years
> 10 years
< 5 years

< 5 years

REGION
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
West
South
West

West

West
Northeast
South
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West

West
Midwest
Northeast
Northeast
South
West

Northeast

PSEUDONYM
56. Julio
57. Hewett
58. Monte
59. Roth
60. Bryce
61. Vito
62. Judd

63. Lamar

64. Riley
65. Dane
66. Wade
67. Jed
68. Syl
69. Emmett
70. Shelby
71. York

@225

M

M

RACE

217

EXPERIENCE

 

< 5 years
> 10 years
5—10 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
> 10 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years
5-10 years
< 5 years

< 5 years

5139:!
South
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
South
Northeast
Northeast
South
Northeast
South
South
Midwest
Northeast
Northeast

West

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE CONTRACT BETWEEN A BONDSMAN AND A BOUNTY HUNTER

218

Agreement for Amehension anfiurrender of Bailee

Date

Bond Number Bailee
Bond Amount AKA
Bail Agency DOB
Forfeiture Date Court
Arrest Agent Jail

Judgment Due Date

This agreement is made on , between
, a duly licensed Michigan bail agent, hereinafter referred

to as “Bail Agent”, and , hereinafter
referred to as “Arrest Agent”, and is entered into to effectuate the timely
apprehension and surrender of the Bailee named above, hereinafter referred to
as “Bailee”, subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. Arrest Agent shall take all necessary lawful steps to locate, apprehend and
surrender the above-named Bailee to the County
Jail, pursuant to the provisions of M.C.L.A. 765.26, in order to facilitate Bail

Agent’s relief from forfeiture.

(a) Arrest Agent warrants that he or she has read and is familiar with Michigan’s
Compiled laws relating to bail and the arrest of a fugitive. Further, that he or she
will conduct himself or herself in accord with the guidelines and criteria regarding
fugitive apprehension efforts set forth therein.

(b) Arrest Agent further warrants that he or she is experienced in the field of
fugitive apprehension, and that he or she stays current with the information
necessary to conduct her/himself as a professional in the fugitive apprehension

field.

2. Upon the apprehension and surrender of the Bailee by Arrest Agent to the
above-named jail on or before the day of , Bail Agent agrees to
pay to Arrest Agent the sum of as compensation for
Arrest Agent’s independent contractor services.

219

(a) In the event a Michigan law enforcement agent or agency takes custody of
Bailee as a direct result of the investigation and apprehension efforts of Arrest
Agent, the above compensation figure shall be deemed fully earned upon
verification by Bail Agent that Bailee is in jail within the State of Michigan, said

verification shall not be unreasonably held.

(b) Such direct action(s) warranting payment includes ( 1) the personal arrest and
surrender of Baileee by Arrest Agent and delivery to the county jail where
originally bailed, and (2) locating Bailee and causing arrest by Michigan law
enforcement officers in Arrest Agent’s presence, based upon Arrest Agent’s

investigative efforts and leads.

(0) If Bailee is arrested by any law enforcement or any other authorized third
person without the direct assistance of the Arrest Agent, not in the presence of
Arrest Agent, the above-referenced independent contractor fee shall not be paid

to the undersigned Arrest Agent.

(d) If this Bailee has forfeited additional bonds written by the Bail Agency, said
forfeitures having been declared prior to execution hereof, and if these bonds can
be exonerated because of Bailee's arrest and surrender hereunder, Arrest Agent
shall be entitled to an independent contractor’s fee for same if the fee agree upon
is a percentage basis, unless this subparagraph is crossed out and initialed by

both parties.

(e) It is agreed between the parties to this agreement that in addition to the
above-stated independent contractor fee to be paid upon his or her performance,
Arrest Agent shall be entitled to expenses reimbursement upon full performance

as follows:

(If no mileage, etc, provisions appear above, it shall be agreed that no expenses
reimbursement is intended).

4. In the event a dispute over payment of the independent contractor’s fee or
expenses arises, the parties agree to binding arbitration by a panel of three
arbiters who shall all be licensed Bail Agents or Private Investigators who will be
selected as follows: one arbiter shall be selected by the Regional Director of
N.A.B.E.A., one from a list of three arbiters by Arrest Agent, and the third by the
mutual agreement. If a party fails to submit a list, the Regional Director shall
select same. The three selected arbiters shall meet with the Bail Agent and
Arrest Agent together within 30 days of their appointment to take evidence and
hear the dispute. A majority finding by the arbiters shall issue within 15 days to
all parties, and shall finally resolve the dispute. The party prevailing in this
arbitration proceeding shall be entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees.

220

5. Arrest Agent shall not make any representation to any person or entity that he
or she is an employee of Bail Agent; if asked, Arrest Agent shall properly identify
himself or herself as a Fugitive Apprehension Agent” or a “Recovery Agent”
independently contracted by Bail Agent to apprehend Bailee.

6. Arrest Agent shall fully indemnify and hold Bail Agent (and Bail Agent’s
General Agent, Employer and/or surety company) harmless from any and all
liabilities arising as a result of Arrest Agent's acts or omissions in the course of

seeking to perform hereunder.

7. Arrest Agent agrees to cease Bailee apprehension efforts upon telephonic
notice from Bail Agent, followed by a written request to cease mailed within 24
hours from telephonic notification. If efforts of Arrest Agent prior to termination
clearly lead to the apprehension, arrest and surrender of Bailee, Arrest Agent
shall be entitled to receive payment of the independent contractor’s fee agreed
above. If a dispute arisesas to payment entitlement, the above arbitration

provisions shall apply.

8. For the purpose of notice hereunder, the parties and their addresses are

as follows:
Bail Agent:
Name
Agency Name
Address
City
State Zip
Telephone

Fax

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the

' undersigned do hereby agree to the
above-stated terms and conditions as
of the date which first appears above.

Bail Agent Signed

Printed or Typed

221

Arrest Agent:

Name

USA

Address

City

State Zip
Telephone

Fax

Arrest Agent Signed

Printed or Typed

APPENDIX C

COMPENDIUM OF BOUNTY HUNTER LAWS

222

By

Jonathan Drimmer
Edited by

Dennis A. Bartlett

A. States outlawing commercial bonding, utilizing public
bail systems, or banning bounty hunting

1. Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. § 969.12 provides that no surety can be
compensated for serving as a surety, effectively
eliminating the commercial bond market. See Kahn v.
McCormack, 299 N.W.2d 279 (Ct. App. l980)(upholding
constitutionality of statute and stating that purpose of

the law is to eliminate the commercial bond industry).

2. Oregon

Defendant only can be released from custody on conditional
release, deposit bond, or on his own recognizance (i.e., no
surety bonds). Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 135.255, .260, .265. In
State v. Epps, 585 P.2d 425 (Or. 1978), the Oregon Supreme
court abolished the broad common law rights of bounty
hunters and bond agents, and applied the Uniform Criminal
Extradition Act to bounty hunters seeking to take
defendants over state lines.

 

3. Illinois

A statute enacted in 1963 designed to eliminate commercial
bail bond industry. See Schilb v. Kuebel, 264 N.E.2d 377,
380 (Ill. 1970), EEELQ 404 U.S. 357 (1971); III. Stat. Ch.
725 §§ 5/110-7, 5/110-8. "No bail bondsman from any state
may seize or transport unwillingly any person found in this
State who is allegedly in violation of a bail bond posted
in some other state." Ill. Stat. Ch. 725 § 5/103-9.

4. Kentucky

Kentucky expressly outlaws the commercial bail bond
industry. Ky. Stat. § 431.510 (outlawing commercial bail

223

bond industry); gee Stephens v. Bonding Assoc. of Kentucky,
538 S.W.2d 580 (Ky 1976) (upholding statute). Bond agent
from another state seeking to arrest fugitive who has fled
to Kentucky must get a warrant. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 440.270.

B. States eliminating free lance bounty hunters, but
allowing full time "runners" who work for 1 bond agent at a

time.
1. Florida

All bail runners must be licensed, and work only for one
bond agent (i.e., eliminating free lance bounty hunters),
be over 18, a resident of the state, have no criminal
record, and pass a certification course, Fla. Stat. §
648.37. One cannot make an arrest on an out of state bond
unless the person is licensed in the state or the state
where the bond was written. Fla. Stat. § 648.30.

2. North Carolina

All bail runners must be licensed. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 58-
71—40. Runner must be over 18, no felony convictions, a
resident of the state, have necessary training and
experience., N.C. Gen. Stat. 58-71-50. Must take 20 hours
of education for a license. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-71-71.
Must take an examination. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-71—70.
Bounty hunters only can work for one bonding company (same
as Florida). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-71-65 (1996). Bondsmen
and runners cannot enter the homes of third parties to
apprehend a fugitive. State v. Mathis, 509 S.E.2d 155 (N.C.

1998).

3. South Carolina

All bail runners are required to be licensed (S.C. Stat 38-
53-80), can have no criminal record for the past ten years,
must be a resident of the state, be over 18 (38-53-90),
must take a 20 hour class and pass an examination (S.C.
Stat. 38-53-80) and can only work for one bond agent who
will supervise and be responsible for their conduct (38-53—
120). Bond agents must supply to clerk of court in the

224

county where they operate a list of their runners. (38—53—
120).

C. States Requiring Licensing (11 states)

1. Indiana

Recovery agents must be licensed. Ind. Code Ann. § 27—10—3—
1 (1997). To obtain a license, recovery agents must be at
least 18 years old, be a citizen of the U.S., be a resident
of the state for at least 6 months, at least 10 years must
have elapsed after any felony conviction to obtain a
license (5 years for misdemeanor), Ind. Code Ann. § 27-10-
3-5, and they must pass an examination given by the State,
Ind. Code Ann. § 27-10—3-6. Recovery agents must notify the
sheriff in their respective locales of residence, Ind. Code
Ann. § 27—10-3-17, and bail bond agents must give the state
a list of recovery agents they employ. Ind. Code Ann. § 27—
10-3-14. Bail bond agent and bounty hunter cannot forcibly
enter the home of a third party. Mishler v. State, 660

N.E.2d 343 (Ind. App.l996).

2. Nevada

All bond agents and their agents must be licensed. Nev.
Code §§ 697.090, 697.180. To obtain a license, a bail
enforcement agent must be at least 21 years old, be a U.S.
citizen, have a high school diploma or equivalent, have no
felony record, pass a psychological examination, pass a
written examination, and pass a drug test. Nev. Code §§
697.173, 697.200 (written examination), 697.186 (letter
from police saying no criminal record). Bounty hunter also
must take a training class within nine months of being
hired as a bounty hunter. Nev. Code § 697.177. After making
an arrest, bail enforcement agent must notify the local law
enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the
defendant was apprehended of his identity, the identity of
the defendant, and where the defendant is being taken to be
surrendered into custody. Before forcibly entering an
inhabited dwelling, a bail enforcement agent must notify
the local law enforcement. Nev. Code. § 697.325.

225

3. Mississippi

Bail enforcement agents must be licensed. Requirements are
being at least 21 years of age, resident of the state at
least 1 year, no felony record. Miss. Stat. Ann. § 83-39-3.

4. South Dakota

Bail runner must be licensed, and have no felony record.
S.D.C.L. §§ 58-22-12, 58-22-13 (must submit fingerprints),
58-22-16 (must pass a written examination). Bond agent must
notify the state of the runners they employ. S.D.C.L. §§
58-22-27, 58-22-52. Out of state bail agent or runner must
notify local law enforcement where he intends to conduct
activities, and present evidence of out of state license.
If he has no license, he cannot conduct search and arrest

activities. § 58—22-51.
5. Connecticut

Requires licensing, training (20 hours of study), and
background checks (no felony record). Police officers are
forbidden from being bounty hunters. Bounty hunters must
notify local police before making an arrest, and cannot
carry wear clothes or carry a badge suggesting he is an
agent of the state or federal government. C.G.S.AJ § 29-

152e through §29—1521.
6. Arizona

Bounty hunters must be licensed (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-
3885), pass a background check (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-323),
and complete a training class (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 20-3001
through 3005). Bounty hunters only can enter a home with
the consent of the occupants present at the time of entry,
and cannot wear clothes indicating that the bounty hunter
is a state or federal official. Bond agents must notify the
state that they are utilizing particular bounty hunters.
Once a year, bond agents also must notify the state of all
bounty hunters they have used. Out of state bounty hunters
must contract with Arizona licensed recovery agents. Ariz.

Rev. Stat. § 13-3885.

7. Utah

Bounty hunters must be licensed (Utah Code Ann. § 53-11-
107), be 21 years of age, a citizen or legal resident of

226

U.S., complete a state background check, a training class,
and perform minimum time in the field as an apprentice,
bond agent, or law enforcement officer (Utah Code Ann. §
53-11—108, et. seq.). Local police must be notified before
making an arrest. (Utah Code Ann. §§ 53—11-122, 123).

8. Iowa

Bounty hunters must be licensed and notify local police of
a defendant's location before making an arrest. Iowa Code §
80A.3. A victim can sue a bail bond agent as well as the
bounty hunter for misconduct. Iowa Code § 80A.16A. A bounty
hunter cannot enter the home of or use force against an
innocent third party. State v. McFarland, 598 N.W.2d 318

(Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
9. Louisiana

All recovery agents must be licensed by DOI. There are
education requirements to obtain and keep license. Out of
state recovery personnel must contract with a bail agent
licensed in Louisiana. Recovery personnel required to wear
apparel identifying bail bond company during apprehension
or surrender in a private residence. For apprehension in a
private residence, notification of local law enforcement
required. (LAC Title 37, Part XVIII, Ch. 49, Reg 65, Sec.

4901 et seq.)
10. California

Bail fugitive recovery agents must be 18 years old, have no
felony convictions, complete a specified training courses,
and notify local law enforcement of their intent to
apprehend a bail fugitive no more than 6 hours before doing
so. They must have written authorization from the bond
agent when making an arrest, and cannot forcibly enter any
premises, except pursuant to certain existing provisions of
law governing arrest by a private person. Bounty hunters .
cannot represent themselves as law officers, or wear badges
or uniforms that a reasonable person might mistake for a
government agency. All bounty hunters must carry with them
a certification of completion of required courses and
training programs. Out of state bounty hunters must be
licensed in their home states, or be licensed bail agents.
Private detectives need not obtain a separate bounty hunter
license to operate in the state. This law will remain in
effect only until January 1, 2005. Cal. Penal Code § 1299.

227

In addition, bounty hunter or bond agent who captures
defendant in California must go through extradition
procedures to transport him interstate. Cal. Penal Code §
847.5 (1995 West); Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505
F.2d 547 (9th Cir.l974). After an arrest of a defendant on
bail, the surety must deliver him to the court or police
within 48 hours of the arrest if it occurs within
California; if the arrest occurs out of state, the surety
must deliver the defendant within 48 hours of their
entering California. Cal. Penal Code § 1301.

11. West‘Virginia

All "bail bond enforcers" must register with the West
Virginia state police. That registration must: (1) identify
at least one bond agent for whom the enforcer is authorized
to act, (2) include written authorization from that bonding
agent, (3) include the enforcer's certified fingerprints,
and (4) include one photograph. To register, an enforcer
must be at least 21 years old, a citizen of the U.S., and
have no felony convictions. A bonding agent can grant an
ongoing 2-year authorization to an enforcer who is a West
Virginia citizen to seek all defendants for whom the
bonding agent acts as surety. The bonding agent otherwise
can grant a 60 day authorization to an enforcer, in which
case the enforcer must notify the state police of the time
and place of any proposed action, and if the enforcer is
not a state resident, he also must notify the police the
date he will enter the state. Out of state bounty hunters
must abide by the same requirements of in-state (including
written authorization from in-state bonding agent). An
enforcer is to be considered the legal agent of the bonding
agent. An enforcer cannot: (1) enter an occupied
residential structure (i.e., a house or apartment) without
the consent of the occupants who are then present, (2)
arrest a defendant without written authorization from the
bondsman, (3) wear or carry any uniform or badge that
implies that the enforcer is a state agent or employee (but
"may display identification that indicates his or her
status as a bail bond enforcer only"), and (4) must
exercise due care to protect the safety of third parties.
H.B. 4481 (Enacted April 4, 2000).

228

D. Other State Laws

1. New Hampshire

Recovery agents must be trained and certified through a
program approved by the Professional Bail Agents of the
United States, and register with the Secretary of State
(who will issue proof of registration). Bail agency must
have at least $300,000 in liability insurance for recovery
activities, and recovery agents acting as independent
contractors must have liability insurance of at least
$300,000. Bail agents and recovery agents must inform the
chief of police of the relevant municipality when searching
for bail jumper. N.H. Stat. § 597:7-b.

2. Georgia

Bounty hunter must be at least 25 years old, must be a U.S.
citizen, must obtain a gun permit, and must notify the
local police of the intended arrest. Bondsmen must register
with the sheriff of the county in which the bondsman is a
resident all bail recovery agents that he employs. A bounty
hunter must carry identification cards issued by bondsman,
which describe the bounty hunter's physical appearance, and
contains the bondsman's signature. Bounty hunter cannot
wear clothing or carry badges suggesting that he is a
public employee. An out of state recovery agent must be
able to prove that he is licensed in his home state, or
hire a Georgia bounty hunter if there is no licensing law
in his home state. Ga. Code § 17-6-56 through 17-6-58.

3. Colorado

Bond agents must take class in bail recovery, and a bond
agent who wants to hire anyone other than another licensed
bail agent to perform recovery work must submit to the
state a certificate showing that such person has received
training from a bail recovery training program, and submit
his fingerprints (the person cannot have a criminal
record). The bail agent then cannot hire this person until
the state completes a background check based on the
fingerprints. Col. Rev. Stat. § 12-7—105.5.

4. Tennessee

A bounty hunter cannot have criminal record, must notify
local police of defendant's location, and present to the

229

police a copy of the warrant, a copy of the bond, and
evidence that bounty hunter has been hired by bond agent.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-3.

5. Arkansas

H.B. 1163, enacted April 15, 1999. Only licensed bail
agents, private investigators, or law enforcement officers,
or people who have 2 years of actual work as a licensed
investigator, bond agent, or law enforcement officer can
seek and arrest fugitives. Such person must be at least 21
years of age, have no felony record, and notify the local
police of his presence and provide them with the
defendant's name, charges, and suspected location.

6. Texas

Tex. Code Crim. P. 17.19 states that bail gent can obtain
warrant from court before seeking to arrest defendant, and
a judicial warrant is required to arrest with force, Tex.
Code Crim. Proc Art 17.19 (Vernon 1977); see Austin v.
State, 541 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. Cr. App. 1976). Uniform
Criminal Extradition Act requires that bond agent or bounty
hunter take defendant before magistrate prior to
transporting over state lines. See Landry v. A-Able

Bonding, Inc., 75 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1996).

 

7. Oklahoma

Out of state bounty hunter or bond agent must be
accompanied by peace officer or licensed Oklahoma bond
agent when seeking to apprehend bail jumper. Okl. Stat. §

1750.14.

NOTE: This compendium of bounty hunter laws was taken
from the website of the American Bail Coalition, June
8, 2005 (www.americanbailcoalition.com).

230

APPENDIX D

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

231

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: In this questionnaire I ask for information regarding your
background and experience, your work as a bail enforcement agent, and your opinions about the
regulation of bail enforcement agents. This information will be used to develop an accurate account
of who bail enforcement agents are, and the process they engage in when tracking and capturing a
fugitive. It also examines the opinions agents like yourself have about regulating bounty hunter

conduct.

1. BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS: Because so little is known about who bail enforcement

agents are
or what their day-to-day lives are like, it is important to obtain background information about them. This

section asks for information that helps describe who bail enforcement agents are. Please put a check mark
(I) in the box next to your answer.

1. What is your sex?

0 MALE l] FEMALE

2. What is your race?

I] WHITE l] NONWHITE

3. What is your current marital status?

I] NEVER MARRIED l] MARRIED l] DIVORCED l] SEPARATED [l WIDOWED

4. What is your current age?

. l] UNDER 25 [1 26-35 [1 36-45 I] 46-55 D 56+

5. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?

 

[1 HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS [1 SOME COLLEGE
[I COLLEGE DEGREE (specify degree and major) /
[1 GRADUATE DEGREE (specify degree and major) /

 

6. What is your approximate gross household income from all sources, before taxes, in 2003?
El LESS THAN $25,000 l] $25,000 to $50,000 [l $51,000 to $75,000 [1 MORE THAN $75,000

7. Which of the following fl describes your usual stand on political issues?
0 CONSERVATIVE I] MODERATE l] LIBERAL

(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

232

II. OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BACKGROUND: This section asks about the
type and amount of work you do, including work that may or may not be related to bail enforcement.
Your answers to these questions will help paint a picture of your work life, including the kind of training
you may have received in your work as a bail enforcement agent. Please place a check mark (I) in the
box next to your answer, or fill in the blank as appropriate.

8. Do you engage in bail enforcement (fugitive recovery) work full-time?

U YES (Skip to question 11) U NO (Go to question 9)
9. Do you engage in any work full-time other than bail enforcement?

U YES (Go to question 10) U NO (Go to question 11)

10. If YES, what, if any, work do you do full-time?

 

11. In which state do you have your primary residence?

 

12. Does your state of residence require you to be M as a bail enforcement agent?

I] YES U NO [I DON’T KNOW
13. Are you lice__ns_ed in any state to work as a bail enforcement agent?

U YES (Go to question 14) [I NO (Skip to question 15)

14. IfYES, in which of the following states are you licensed to work as a bail enforcement agent?

U ALABAMA U ALASKA U ARIZONA U ARKANSAS
U CALIFORNIA U COLORADO U CONNECTICUT U DELAWARE
U FLORIDA U GEORGIA U HAWAII U IDAHO
U ILLINOIS U INDIANA U IOWA U KANSAS
U KENTUCKY U LOUISIANA U MAINE U MARYLAND
U MASSACHUSETTS U MICHIGAN U MINNESOTA U MISSISSIPPI
U MISSOURI U MONTANA U NEBRASKA U NEVADA
U NEW HAMPSHIRE U NEW JERSEY U NEW MEXICO U NEW YORK
U NORTH CAROLINA U NORTH DAKOTA U OHIO U OKLAHOMA
U OREGON U PENNSYLVANIA U RHODE ISLAND U SOUTH CAROLINA
U SOUTH DAKOTA U TENNESSEE U TEXAS U UTAH
UVERMONT U VIRGINIA U WASHINGTON U WASHINGTON, DO
U WEST VIRGINIA U WISCONSIN U WYOMING
(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

233

15. Apart from any license your state may or may not require, does your state of residence require bail
enforcement agents to register with any state authority as a bail enforcement agent?

DYES 0N0

l6. Apart from any states you may be licensed as a bail enforcement agent. are you registered with a
state authority to work as a bail enforcement agent?

U YES (Go to question 17) 0 NO (Skip to question 18)

17. In which states are you registered to work as a bail enforcement agent?

I] ALABAMA D ALASKA l] ARIZONA n ARKANSAS
0 CALIFORNIA [1 COLORADO l] CONNECTICUT D DELAWARE

U FLORIDA U GEORGIA U HAWAn l] IDAHO

U ILLINOIS U INDIANA U IOWA U KANSAS

[l KENTUCKY l] LOUISIANA [l MAINE UMARYLAND

l] MASSACHUSETTS [l MICHIGAN l] MINNESOTA n MISSISSIPPI

U MISSOURI n MONTANA l] NEBRASKA l] NEVADA

D NEW HAMPSHIRE u NEW JERSEY [1 NEW MEXICO 0 NEW YORK

[1 NORTH CAROLINA 1] NORTH DAKOTA [I OHIO I] OKLAHOMA

l] OREGON [l PENNSYLVANIA U RHODE ISLAND El SOUTH CAROLINA
U SOUTH DAKOTA [l TENNESSEE u TEXAS ll UTAH
UVERMONT [I VIRGINIA l] WASHINGTON [I WASHINGTON. DC.
I] WEST VIRGINIA l] WISCONSIN U WYOMING

18. What greentage of your total work time is spent in bail enforcement activities?
I] LESS THAN 25% U 25%1‘0 50% [l 51% TO 75% U MORE THAN 75%

19. Do you engage in work where you earn an income other than bail enforcement?
[I YES (Go to question 20) 0 NO (Skip to question 21)

20. What Is the other work you do other than bail enforcement to earn income?

 

21. In your employment as a bail enforcement agent, do you primarily:
U OWN YOUR OWN BAIL ENFORCEMENT BUSINESS (Go to question 22)
U WORK FOR ANOTHER BAIL ENFORCEMENT AGENT (Skip to question 23)

U WORK FOR ANOTHER BAIL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (Skip to question 23)

(GO TO PAGE 4)

234

22. In owning your own bail enforcement business, do you Ema—rim:
U WORK ALONE U ASK OTHER AGENTS TO ASSIST YOU AS NEEDED
U EMPLOY OTHER AGENTS ON A REGULAR PAYROLL
23. How many years have you worked as a bail enforcement agent?
I] LESS THAN FIVE YEARS U FIVE TO TEN YEARS U MORE THAN TEN YEARS
24. Which of the following occupational licenses do you hold? (Check all that apply)
U BAIL ENFORCEMENT AGENT LICENSE
U PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE LICENSE
U BAIL BOND LICENSE U VEHICLE REPOSSESSION LICENSE l3 NONE

U OTHER (Please specify)

25. How much income did you earn from bail enforcement activities before taxes in 2003?

 

U LESS THAN $15,000 U $15,000 TO $29,999 U $30,000 TO $44,999
U 545.000 TO $59,999 U $60,000 TO $75,000 U MORE THAN $75,000

26. Does your state of residence require a license to carry a concealed weapon?

0 YES (Go to question 27) 0 NO (Skip to question 28)

27. Are you licensed to carry a concealed weapon in your state of residence?

U YES U NO
28. Are you licensed to carry a concealed weapon in states other than the one in which you reside?

U YES (Go to question 29) U NO (Skip to question 30)

(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

235

29. In which of the following states are you licensed to carry a concealed weapon?

I] ALABAMA
I] CALIFORNIA
l] FLORIDA

[I ILLINOIS

l] KENTUCKY

U MASSACHUSETTS

U MISSOURI

U NEW HAMPSHIRE
U NORTH CAROLINA

U OREGON

D SOUTH DAKOTA
[l VERMONT

[1 WEST VIRGINIA

U ALASKA

I] COLORADO

[l GEORGIA

I] INDIANA

l] LOUISIANA

[I MICHIGAN

I] MONTANA

[I NEW JERSEY

[1 NORTH DAKOTA
I] PENNSYLVANIA
l] TENNESSEE

l] VIRGINIA

[I WISCONSIN

[I ARIZONA ll ARKANSAS
l] CONNECTICUT [l DELAWARE
I] HAWAII I] IDAHO

D IOWA [I KANSAS

[I MAINE [l MARYLAND
[I MINNESOTA D MISSISSIPPI
[l NEBRASKA I] NEVADA

ll NEW MEXICO ll NEW YORK
l] OHIO l] OKLAHOMA
[l RHODE ISLAND I] SOUTH CAROLINA
[I TEXAS I] UTAH

U WASHINGTON

U WYOMING

U WASHINGTON. D. C.

30. Have you completed any bail enforcement training at the National Bail Enforcement School?

DYES

[INC

31. Have you completed any bail enforcement training at any school/agency other than the National Bail

Enforcement School?

U YES (G0 to question 32) p

0 NO (Skip to question 33)

32. What is (are) the name(s) of the school/agency where you have received bail enforcement training?

 

 

33. Which of the following control techniques do you hold certification in? (Check all that apply)

I] PRESSURE POINT CONTROL TACTICS
I] FIREARMS USE/SAFETY

U PERSONAL/EXECUTIVE PROTECTION

U OTHER (Please specify)

0 NONE

l] VERBAL JUDO
I] FAST HANDCUFFING

U CANING

 

34. In your experience as a bail enforcement agent, did you spend any time in the field being trained by
another, more experienced bail enforcement agent(s)?

U YES (Go to question 35)

236

U NO (Sldp to Question 36)

(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

35. In the course of being trained by another agent, how many months did you train before you accepted
your first case on your own? (Months)

36. Do you accept fugitive recovery cases where the fugitive has fled to and is living in another country?
U YES (Go to question 37) U NO (Skip to question 38)
37. How many fugitive recovery cases involving international flight did you accept in the year 2003?
D LESSTHANS US-lO Ull-15 [115 ORMORE DNONE
38. Do you gum use any kind of badge in the course of doing bail enforcement work?
U YES U NO

39. Do you routinely wear clothing that identifies you as a Bail Enforcement Agent in the course of doing
your bail enforcement work?

UYES UNO

40. Approximately how many fugitive recovery cases did you participate in (either as the primary
investigator or as an assistant to another bail enforcement agent) during 2003?

U LESS THAN FIVE U FIVE TO TEN U ELEVEN TO 15 U MORE THAN
F IFI'EEN

41. During the year 2003, what was the number of referrals made to you by bail bondsmen?
42. During the year 2003, what was the number of referrals made to you by law enforcement?
43. During the year 2003, what was the number of referrals made to you by relatives of defendants?

44. During the year 2003, were referrals made to you from sources other than bail bondsmen. law
enforcement and/or relatives of defendants?

U YES (Go to question 45) U NO (Skip to question 46)

45. Please identify all other sources of referral to you during 2003, and the number from each referral
source.

 

 

 

 

Source: Number:
Source: Number:
Source: Number:
Source: Number:
(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

237

46. Bail enforcement agents ofien consider a variety of factors when they are attempting to make a fugitive
recovery. For each factor identified below, please place a check mark (I) next to the response that best
reflects how important the factor is overall in helping you to make a successful recovery.

 

a. The nature of the bondable offense:
U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHATIMPORTANT USOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

b. The bondsman's history with the fugitive:
U VERY lMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT lMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

. The physical characteristics of the offender (size, tattoos, scars, etc.):
U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHATIMPORTANT USOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

0

d. The fugitive’s living style (drug use, neighborhood environment, type of friends, etc.):

U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT USOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
. The fugitive’s criminal history (number/type of offenses. whether weapons are used, etc.):

U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

0

f. The reason the fugitive failed to appear in court:
[I VERY IMPORTANT [I SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT USOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT I] VERY UNIMPORTANT

g. Whether the fugitive has failed to appear in an in-state court or an out-of-state court on the current
offense:

[I VERY IMPORTANT D SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT D SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
h. The address/location the fugitive has bonded out to:
U VERY IMPORTANT [I SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT D SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT D VERY UNIMPORTANT

i. The amount of physical danger you believe you will be in at the time of the capture:
U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

47. Please list any other factors that you consider important in helping you to make a successful fugitive
recovery:

 

9'.”

 

.0

 

 

 

48. Approximately what percentage of your bail enforcement cases result in an arrest (recovery)?

ULESSTHAN25% U25T050% U51TO75% UMORETHAN75%

(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

238

 

49. Bail enforcement agents often use a variety of skills and possess personality traits that aid in the
process of tracking and capturing a fugitive. For each of the skills and traits listed below, please place a
check mark (I) next to the response that best describes how important the factor is overall in helping you

to make a successful recovery.
3. Effective communication skills:
U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHATIMPORTANT I] SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY

UNIMPORTANT

b. Patience:
UVERYIMPORTANT U SOMEWHATIMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

c. Inquisitiveness (Curiosity):

UVERY IMPORTANT [I SOMEWHATIMPORTANT D SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
d. The ability to “read” people (using verbal and nonverbal cues):

UVERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHATIMPORTANT l] SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
e. The ability to effectively operate within the “gray areas” of the law:

DVERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

f. The ability to adapt to and blend into a variety of different environments:

I] VERY IMPORTANT l] SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT D SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT D VERY UNIMPORTANT
g. The ability to know which people to talk with to gather relevant information:

U VERY IMPORTANT I] SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
h. The ability to gather information from public records and databases:

U VERY IMPORTANT D SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
i. The ability to listen when peOple talk:

I] VERY IMPORTANT I] SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT
j. The ability to know when and how to use weapons (both lethal and non-lethal):

U VERY IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

k. The stamina to remain in surveillance positions for long periods of time:
D VERY IMPORTANT I] SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT U SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT U VERY UNIMPORTANT

50. Please list any other skills you think are important to a bail enforcement agent in making a successful
recovery.

 

F" P’

 

 

.9- .0

 

.0

 

 

(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

239

51. Overall. what do you believe the risk of physical harm is to the bail enforcement agent when
making a fugitive recovery?

U LITTLE RISK U MODERATE RISK U HIGH RISK

52. In general what is the number of days the courts in your state allow for an agent to make a recovery
before the bail bond is forfeited by a bondsman? days

53. In general, what is the number of days the courts in your state allow for an agent to make a recovery
before the bail bond is forfeited by a private individual who posted the bond? days

III. Respondent’s opinions regarding the role of licensing and regulation: There has been considerable
discussion at both the state and federal levels of government over the past couple of years about regulating
bounty hunters. This section asks your opinions about whether bail enforcement agents should be
regulated Please place a check mark (l) next to the response that best indicates your level of agreement

or disagreement with the statement
54. Bail enforcement agents play an important role in the criminal justice system.

_Strongly Disagree _Disagree _Agree _Strongly Agree
55. Bail enforcement should be considered a “professional” occupation:

__Strongly Disagree _Disagree _Agree ____Strongly Agree

56. Bail enforcement agents should be required to be licensed by the federal government:

 

 

Strongly Disagree ' Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

57. Bail enforcement agents should be required to be licensed by the gate government:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

 

58. Bail enforcement agents should be required to register with the federal government:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
59. Bail enforcement agents should be required to register with the gate government:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

(GO TO THE NEXT PAGE)

240

60. Licensing bail enforcement agents (at either the state or federal level) would help others in the criminal
justice system to View bail enforcement agents as professionals.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
61. Licensing bail enforcement agents (at either the state or federal level) would help standardize practices
among bail enforcement agents.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
62. Licensing bail enforcement agents (at either the state or federal level) would increase the
professionalism of bail enforcement agents.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

63. Licensing bail enforcement agents (at either the state or federal level) would help to improve the
financial gain bail enforcement agents get from capturing fugitives.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

64. Licensing bail enforcement agents (at either the state or federal level) would not be effective unless
bail bondsmen were also licensed as bail enforcement agents.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

***If you are willing to be interviewed by me, and/or willing to allow me to accompany you on a
fugitive recovery, please read and sign the document attached to the back of the questionnaire and
return it along with the questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope.

THANK YOU!

241

APPENDIX E

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER

242

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF BOUNTY HUNTER CONDUCT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR LICENSING‘AND REGULATION

Dear Bail Enforcement Agent:

I am doctoral student at Michigan State University and a licensed private investigator in the State of
Michigan. In the course of my work I have had many conversations with bail enforcement agents
(“bounty hunters”) and attended their annual meeting in Las Vegas a couple of years ago. During the
course of these conversations, I became aware that the image of bounty hunters historically portrayed
in Western movies and on television has recently been reborn in the “legitimate” media. These
accounts often present an image of the bail enforcement agem as uneducated, unskilled, violent, out
of control, and In need of regulation This has resulted In a great deal of debate at the state and federal
levels of government about regulating bounty hunters.

There is virtually no research that describes who bounty hunters are, or that examines their image as it

is rooted in the reality of their day-to-day lives and the work they do. No one has asked bounty
hunters themselves about whether they think regulation is necessary. This survey is the first of its

kind to develop an understanding of these issues from the perspective of the agents themselves.

You have been selected for participation in this survey because you have been identified as someone
with bail enforcement experience. Completion of this questiomraire will take approximately 45 minutes,
and your completion of the questionnaire indicates your willingness to participate in the survey. Your
participation in the survey and your responses will be confidential. All data will be compiled so that no
identifying information about individual respondents will be retained once the project is completed. You
may, of course, refuse to complete the questionnaire if you wish Questions regarding the survey should
be directed to Mischelle Taylor Stone, 1012 West High Street, Suite H, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858. You

may also contact me through my e-mail at Stonemis@msuedu or reach me by telephone at 989-779-9736.

Your participation is critical to the success of this research. Therefore, I ask that you please complete the
attached questionnaire and retum it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope within ten (10) days. Your
completion of the questionnaire will help lead to a better understanding of who bail enforcement agents are,
the nature of the work they do, and the role they play in the criminal justice system.

Thank you for your cooperation and the prompt return of this questionnaire.

Mischelle Taylor Stone, Licensed Private Investigator
Doctoral Student, School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University

 

Any questions about participants’ rights that may be raised by this study should be directed to Peter Vasilenko, PhD., Chairperson.
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, Michigan State University, East Lansing. MI 48824 (telephone: 517-
355-2180. (wwwhumanresearclrmsuedu).

243

 

APPENDIX F

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

244

Informed Consent for Dissertation Research Project Participation:
A Situational Analysis of Bounty Hunter Conduct

Dear Bail Enforcement Agent:

I am a licensed private investigator in the State of Michigan. In the course of my work I have had many
conversations with bail enforcement agents. I recently attended a national meeting of bail enforcement
agents (“bounty hunters”) in Las Vegas, and it became apparent in my conversations with the agents that
the topic of regulation is one that is hotly debated I am now a graduate student at Michigan State
University, and have the opporttmity to study this issue in depth utilizing input from bail enforcement
agents themselves. You have been selected for participation in the study because of your experience as
a bail enforcement agent.

Your participation in this project will include being interviewed by me. All interviews are completely
voluntary and you may decide not to be interviewed. The interview may be over the telephone or face-
to-face. Telephone interviews will last less than one hour. Beeause face-to-face interviews may take
place during an actual recovery experience, they may take several hours. Your willingness to allow
me to accompany you as an observer on a recovery is completely voluntary, so you may consent to be
interviewed even if you do not wish to have me accompany you on a recovery operation. IfI accom-
pany you on a recovery operation, I may ask your permission to allow me to take photographs;
however, all of the data gathered during the interviews and field work will be confidential, and
identities of the participants will be known only to me. Data that could be used to identify individuals
will be destroyed at the conclusion of the writing process. You will have the opportunity to withdraw
from the study at any time up until April 1, 2004. At that point, I will be in the final stages of the writing
process and will not be able to remove any quotations from the document.

This study will be shared with my dissertation committee and other appropriate members of the Michigan
State University community. The dissertation that results from this work will be published in hard copy
and microfiche, both of which will be housed at the Michigan State University campus library in East

Lansing, Michigan
I appreciate your willingness to participate in my research, which will help us to learn more about who

bail enforcement agents are and what they do. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at 989-779-9736, or e-mail me at Stonemis@msuedu and I will be happy to reply.

Thank you.

Mischelle T. Stone

 

Please indicate your willingness to participate in an interview or field work (or both) with me by signing
below and checking each of the activities you would be willing to participate in

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature Print Name

Address Telephone ( )
E-mail

Address Date

I consent to (check all that apply):

An Interview with the Researcher
Allowing the Researcher to Accompany Me Into the Field
Allowing Photographs to be Taken While on a Fugitive Recovery Operation

245

APPENDIX G

LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BAIL ENFORCEMENT

246

National Institute of Bail Enforcement

P.M.B. Box 268 3105 N. Ashland Ave. Chicago, IL 60657 815-675-0260
www.NIBE@bountv-hunter.net

'

Scott Olson, National Director solson@bounty-hunter.net

August 4, 2004

Dear NIBE Agent:

Enclosed you will find a survey from Mischelle Stone, a woman who is completing her
Ph.D in Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. She also teaches in the Department
of Justice Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Mischelle is trying to
examine the role of Bail Enforcement Agents in the criminal justice system, and I believe
her research will make an important contribution to our efforts to help others better
understand who we are and what we do. Perhaps most important, she is looking at the
work we do from our perspective.

I am sure that you are aware that recent events involving Bail Enforcement Agents have
almost exclusively been negatively portrayed in the media. Such overage does a
disservice to the work we do and the role we play in the criminal justice system. I believe
the research being conducted by Mischelle can address this negative publicity, and can also
help us and others in the criminal justice system better understand the positive
contributions we make to the system.

Therefore, I am asking your cooperation in filling out this survey and send it back to
Mischelle as soon as possible. If you have any questions, you may contact Mischelle at
989-772-5084, or call me at the Institute at 815-675-0260.

Sincerely,

Scott Olson
National Director

Enclosure

“The Harvard of Bounty Hunters”-Police Magazine

247

APPENDIX H

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW—UP LETTER

248

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF BOUNTY HUNTER CONDUCT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR LICENSING AND REGULATION

Dear Bail Enforcement Agent:

I recently sent you a survey questionnaire that contains questions related to your .
experience as a bail enforcement agent. I am writing now to remind you of the
importance of completing and returning the questionnaire. The research I am com-
pleting as part of my doctoral degree focuses on the role of bail enforcement agents
in the criminal justice system and the implications this role has for licensing and
regulation of your work. This survey is the first of its kind to develop an understand-
ing of these issues fi'om the perspective of the agents themselves.

You have been selected for participation in this survey because you have been identified
as someone with bail enforcement experience. Completion of this questionnaire will take
approximately 45 minutes, and your completion of the questionnaire indicates your
willingness to participate in the survey. Your participation in the survey and your
responses will be confidential. All data will be compiled so that no identifying
information about individual respondents will be retained once the project is completed.
You may, of course, refuse to complete the questionnaire if you wish. Questions
regarding the survey should be directed to Mischelle Taylor Stone, 1012 West High
Street, Suite H, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858. You may also contact me through my e-mail at
Stonemis@msu.edu or reach me by telephone at 989-779-9736.

Your participation is critical to the success of this research. Therefore, I ask that you
please complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope
within ten (10) days. Your completion of the questionnaire will help lead to a better
understanding of who bail enforcement agents are, the nature of the work they do, and the
role they play in the criminal justice system.

Thank you for your cooperation and the prompt return of this questionnaire.

Mischelle Taylor Stone, Licensed Private Investigator
Doctoral Student, School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University

 

Any questions about participants’ rights that may be raised by this study should be directed to: Peter Vasilenko, PhD., Chairperson,
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, Michigan State University, East Lansing. MI 48824 (telephone: 517-
355-2180 ). (www.humanresearch.msu.edu).

249

APPENDIX I

INTERVIEW GUIDE

250

 

A Situational Analysis of Bounty Hunter Conduct:
Implications for Licensing and Regulation

 

 

Interview Guide

 

 

What was the process by which the bounty hunter began working as a bail enforcement
agent?

Relationships to bail bondsmen

Relationships to other bail enforcement agents
On-the-job training

Relationship to other work being performed
Number of years experience

\\\\\

What is the reason(s) for working full-time/part-time as a bail enforcement agent?

/ Choice vs. availability of work
I Effect of 10% rule

I Relationship to bail bondsman
I Other work

Qualifications

/ Education

I Related experience

J Training (formal and OTJ)

What factors are considered when deciding to/not to attend bail enforcement training
programs?

I Mandatory training vs. voluntary training

/ Informal vs. formal training

I Types of control techniques trained in (certification?)\

/ Other types of formal training provided by organizations other than BEA affiliated
Types of cases accepted/declined

/ Preferred cases/circumstances

I Factors affecting decision to accept/decline cases

I Rationale

Use of badges/other clothing for identification
/ Regulatory requirements

I Situational factors that govern where and when used
I Advantages and disadvantages

251

10.

11.

What factors are considered when the “dangerousness ” of a situation is being assessed?

\\\\\\\\\\\

Nature of offense (assaultive?)

Number of offense (3" striker?)

Criminal history of offender

Reason why offender failed to appear

In/out of state flight

Physical attributes

Relationship to bail bondsman

Lifestyle (fi'iends, neighborhood, etc.)

Factors affecting decision to/not to let firgitive know he’s being sought
Factors involved in capturing in public vs. private setting
Factors weighted differently?

Philosophy of bail enforcement

\\\\\

Role of “justice” in CJ system

Financial considerations

Using private sector to fill gap in public system
F ee structure

Adrenaline rush

What skills should one possess to maximize effectiveness in fugitive recovery?

\\\\\\\\\\

Good listener

Effective communication skills

Ability to adapt to one’s environment (through appearance, language use, etc.)
Tenacity/Persistence

Ability to “read” people

Knowledge of the law

Ability to safely use firearms

Ability to effectively interview

Driving skills

Most important skills

What traits should one possess to maximize effectiveness in fugitive recovery?

\\\\\\

Inquisitiveness

Tenacity

Patience

Independent drinker/worker
Motivation

Most important traits

What knowledge should one possess to maximize effectiveness in fugitive recovery?

I
I
/

Databases (CCH, public records, vehicle ID searches, etc.)
Law enforcement system/jurisdictions
Police procedures (surveillance, canvassing, interrogation, interviewing, etc.)

252

12.

l3.

14.

What role does “gut feeling” or “hunch” play in how a recovery is effected?

/ Intuition
/ Sensory response
/ Logical (albeit unconscious) accumulation of knowledge placed in experiential context

What aspects of regulation would be beneficial to BEAs?

State vs. federal regulation

Licensing vs. registration

Professionalization

Improved collaboration with law enforcement agencies
Financial gain (via changes in 10% rule)

Standardize conduct

Code of ethic

Mechanism for dealing with violations of standards

\\\\\\\\

What aspects of regulation would not be beneficial to BEA’s?

State vs. federal regulation

Licensing vs. registration

Constraints on authority

Lack of understanding of occupation

Regulation of private sector functions by public institutions
Failure to hold bondsmen to sinrilar standard

\\\\\\

253

APPENDIX J

FIELDWORK RECORD

254

Fieldwork Record

of

 

Date:

 

Setting:

Time:

to

 

Notes

 

 

255

 

REFERENCES

256

REFERENCES

American Bar Association. (1980). Standards relating to
the administration of criminal justice: pretrial
release. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Anonymous. (1998). Interview with bail bondsman regarding
the relationship between bail bondsmen, bounty hunters
and the criminal justice system.

Backstrom, C. and Hursh-Cesar, G. (1981). Survey Research.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bayley D. and Shearing, C. (1996). The future of policing.
Law and Society Review, 30, 585-606.

Becker, I. (1994). Bail storms. California Lawyer, June,
26—28.

Becker, H.S. (1986). Doing things together. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.

Becker, H.S. and Greer, B. (1970). Participant observation
and interviewing: a comparison. In W. Filstead (ed.)
Qualitative methodology: Firsthand involvement with
the social world (pp.122—142). Chicago: Markham
Publishing Co.

Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the
social sciences. Needham Heights, N.J.: Allyn and
Bacon.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: theory and
method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bogdewicz, S. (1992). Participant observation. In B.
Crabtree and W. Miller (eds.), Doing qualitative
research (pp. 45-69). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
(2000). Pretrial release and detention statistics
(May). Retrieved 4/9/04 from http://www.olp.usdgl.
gov/bjs/pretrial.htm

 

257

Burton, B. (1990). Bail enforcer: the advanced bounty
hunter. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.

Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chamberlin, J. (1998). Bounty hunters: can the criminal
justice system live without them? University of
Illinois Law Review, Fall, 1998 (pp. 1175-1205).

Denzin, N. (1983). Interpretive interactionism. In G.
Morgan (ed.) Beyond method: Strategies for social
research (pp. 129-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000). The discipline and
practice of qualitative research. In N. Denizen and
Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (PP. 1-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Devine, F. (1991). Commercial bail bonding: a comparison
of common law alternatives.

Dewalt, K., Dewalt, B., and Wayland, C. (1998).
Participant observation. In H. Russell Bernard (ed.),
Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 259-
299). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Dill, F. (1975). Discretion, exchange and social control:
bail bondsmen in criminal courts. Law and Society
Review, 9, 639-674.

Dillman, D. (1978). .Mail and telephone surveys: the total
design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Doane, M. (1985). “Liability of bail bondsmen under
section 1983". washington and Lee Law Review, 42, 1,
Winter, 215-245.

Drimmer, J. (1996). When man hunts man: the rights and
duties of bounty hunters in the American criminal

justice system”. Houston Law Review, 33, Fall.

Goldfarb, R. (1965). Ransom: a critique of the American
Bail system. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

258

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1982). Epistemological and
methodological bases of naturalistic enquiry.
Education and Technology JOurnal, 30: 233-252.

Hansen, J. (1981). “The professional bondsman: a state
action analysis”. Cleveland State Law Review, Fall
595-646.

Guyot, D. (1991). Policing as though it mattered.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Henwood, K. (1996). Qualitative inquiry: perspectives,
methods and psychology. In J. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in
psychology and the social sciences (PP. 1-26).
Leicester: BPS Books.

Herman, N. (1994). Interactionist Research Methods: an
overview. In N. Herman and L. Reynolds,
Symbolic interaction (pp. 90-111). Dix Hills, N.Y.:
General Hall, Inc.

Janesick, V. (2000). The choreography of qualitative
research design: minuets, improvisations, and
crystallization. In N. Denizen and Y. Lincoln (eds.)
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 379-399).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, J. (1998). Research design and research
strategies. In H. Russell Bernard (ed.)
Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 131-
171). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Kaufman, B.N. (2001). Power Dialogues. Sheffield, Mass:
Epic Century Publishers.

Kavale, S. (1996). InterViews: an introduction to
qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Landes, W. (1974). “The bail system: an economic
approach.” In G. Becker and W. Landes, Essays in the
economics of crime and punishment (pp. 135-163). New
York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Lee, R. (1995). Dangerous fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

259

Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social
settings. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martindale, D. (1960). The nature and types of
sociological theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Merriam, S. and Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in
adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McMullen, J. (1996). The new improved monied police.
British JOurnal of Criminology, 36, 1, Winter,
pp. 85-108.

National Center for Policy Analysis (1996). Bounty
hunting: Making the bail system work. Unpublished
manuscript.

O’Leary, D. (1994). Reflections on police
privatization. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63, 9,
September, pp. 21-25.

Ormrod, J.E. (2004). Human Learning. Upper Saddle River,
N.J.: Pearson.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pavaloko, R. (1988). Sociology of Occupations and
Professions. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock
Publishers, Inc.

Petras, J. and Meltzer, B. (1994). Theoretical and
ideological variations in contemporary interactionism.
In N. Herman and L. Reynolds, Symbolic interaction
(pp. 55-63). Dix Hills, N.Y.: General Hall, Inc.

Pope, J. (1998). Bounty hunters, marshals, and sheriffs:
Forward to the past. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

260

Reiss, A., Jr. (1968). Stuff and nonsense about social
surveys and observation. In H. Becker, B.Greer, D.
Reisman, and R. Weiss (eds.), Papers presented to C.
Everett Hughes (pp. 351-367). Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co.

Reynolds, M. (1994). Using the private sector to deter
crime. Dallas: National Center for Policy Analysis.

Romley, R. (1997). Quoted in “Burglary, not bounty
hunting, is alleged”. Philadelphia Inquirer,
September 14.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how
professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.

Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shearing, C.D. and P.C. Stenning. (1981). Modern private
security: its growth and its implications. In M.
Tonry and N. Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice: An
American Review, (pp. 85-99). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Singleton, R. and Straits, B. (1999). Approaches to Social
Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Justice Department Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics Online (2000). Felony Defendants in Large
Urban Counties, 2000: http://www.albany.edu/
sourcebook/pdf/t555.pdf

 

South, N. (1988). Policing for profit: the private
security sector. London: Sage Contemporary
Criminology.

Stebbins, R. (2001). Exploratory research in the social

sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (1998). Reflections on the use
of qualitative methods. In G. Symon and C. Cassell
(eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in
organizational research (pp. 1—9). London: Sage
Publications.

261

Tablowsky, P. and Quinn, J. (1993). “Pre-trial release in
the 19905: Texas takes another look at non-financial
release conditions”. New England JOurnal on Criminal
and Civil Commitment, 38, 19, 267—274.

Taylor, S. and Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to
qualitative research methods. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.

Toborg, M. (1983). “Bail bondsmen and criminal courts.”
The Justice System JOurnal, 8,2, pp. 141-156.

Turner, J. (1978). The structure of sociological theory.
Homewood, I.L.: The Dorsey Press.

Whyte, W. F. (1997). Creative problem solving in the
field: reflections on a career. Walnut Creek:

AltaMira Press.

Wice, P. (1974). Freedom for sale. Lexington, Mass:
Lexington Books.

262

 

               

(“(111111

9

5

11111111)

   

1