Student Review:

     Drimmer's article explores the expansive powers that bounty hunters possess to return individuals for trial.  Bounty hunters are not regulated by the state, and are not required to follow constitutional standards in returning suspects.  Drimmer asserts that these broad powers lead to injuries to the accused, and to the public at large.  Despite these abuses, courts still view the power of bounty hunters and bondsmen as stemming from private contract, rather than labeling them as state actors.  In fact, as the states have become more dependent on the services of bounty hunters, their position has increasingly become more important.
      The purpose of the bail system is to allow the criminal defendant the freedom of preparing her defense while securing that the individual will appear at trial.  A commercial bondsman can be hired to post bond with the court and then are given the responsibility to ensure that the defendant will appear at trial.  If the defendant fails to appear, the bond is forfeited.  Thus, if a defendant skips bail, a bondsman hires professional bounty hunters to find and arrest the defendant.  The system of bail began in early English common law and was continued in America.  Individuals released before trial has to obtain sureties, an individual who would stand in place for the defendant and suffer the same punishment, to be released on bail.  The English viewed custody as a continuous event either in the hands of the state or the surety.  Thus, the surety carried the same powers of the sheriff and could arrest the defendant at any time.  In America although the surety was eventually replaced by a bondsman, the bondsman still retained the same powers.  The states soon mandated the bounty hunters arrest individuals who skip bail.  However, the courts continued to find that bondsmen were given these powers not through state action but rather from private bail contracts.  Thus, bounty hunters were not constrained by the constitutional provisions (such as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) like the police.
      Drimmer finds today that states are increasing their reliance on bondsmen and bounty hunters for financial reasons.  Employing police officers to do the same tasks would be much more costly for the states, and so bondsmen now play an increasingly important role.  Relying on bondsmen and bounty hunters is less costly for states, and reduces the amount of prisoners n the states' overcrowded prison system.  Thus, Drimmer finds that the states profit in allowing bounty hunters more extensive powers than the police.  Bounty hunters do not have to obtain warrants, announce their identity before entering a home, read Miranda warnings or refrain from coercing confessions.  Furthermore, bounty hunters are not trained by the government in use of force and arrest regulations.
      Drimmer finds that this lack of regulation benefits the state but harms the public.  Many times, third parties are injured, defendants are subjected to excessive force, and innocent people have been apprehended in their own homes.  Drimmer feels that the solution to this problem is for the states and courts to allow bounty hunters to retain many of the powers shared by the police, but also be forced to follow the same constitutional mandates.  Instead of viewing bounty hunters as private parties, the courts should recognize that bondsmen and bounty hunters are really state actors and should be regulated as such.  By subjecting bounty hunters to the same constitutional provisions as police officers, the benefits of the bond system can be obtained while reducing danger to the average citizen.

Article Summary by: Corrie Noir
Wake Forest University School of Law 1999