TexasCHLforum.com

Glockster wrote: So are you saying that the law referenced and quoted from the DPS site is wrong? That DPS referring to the law that requires them to be licensed and working for a licensed company is incorrect? That sure confuses me as I found several sites that specifically said that a bond holder who thinks that they can do anything in violation of that is breaking the law. And even one site that discusses that a bond holder cannot even conduct surveillance, much less do anything else.

I'm saying that the referenced law doesn't cover everything. It speaks of arrest on a bail warrant and that it's a crime to hire (for the bondsman) or contract (for the bounty hunter) of a non licensed person. Iit doesn't mention the bondsman's, the surety, actions at all. A Bondsman by statute can "(a) A surety may before forfeiture relieve himself of his undertaking by: (1) surrendering the accused into the custody of the sheriff of the county where the prosecution is pending; or ...." . Well that's a bit hard to do if it were as criminal as many will tell you. Case law says that it must be done willingly and without force but you can lie and or trick a person into surrendering. There is no law about dressing up as a bounty hunter that a bondsman would be violating. It's actions that would make it criminal and if they are careful there is a bit of wiggle room. As to the surveillance that is by regulation not penal code. While you may not be able to hire someone to surveil it's a bit much to be saying your not alowed to try and check up on someone you are legally and financially responsible for. I mean that is the whole purpose for have surety bonds, the financial incentive for a private party to help insure a bonded individuals presence.

Of course the whole thing is a bit hypothetical as anyone operating a bonding agency of any size is way to busy to do these type of activities. You will find tho that in small bonding companies in extreme rural areas it's not unheard of.

Oh and I'm sure being out of state adds a whole nother issue. I wouldn't want to even begin getting into that mess.

Glockster wrote:

Abraham wrote:Glockster,

What makes no sense?

Thanks!

Sure -- meaning thinking that the law doesn't apply to them makes no sense. If they are out of state bounty hunters who are not "Peace officer or a registered and insured PI or Commissioned security officer working for a licensed company" they are violating the law. You must be licensed by the Texas Department of Public Safety, private security bureau. There must be a contract with a licensed company and there must be an authorization to arrest. Anything else is a felony in Texas.

Actually the person who holds the bond can operate inside Texas legally. It's illegal for someone else to arrest on that bond without falling into one of those categories. Right now only police and commissioned security can carry in plain view.

Then they were likely operating illegally and if they had stayed there they would have had a good chance of going to jail. If he got a company name have him call DPS as any company conducting such activities in Texas must be licensed thru them.

SewTexas wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Glockster wrote:
And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

For whatever reason regardless if posted it's not considered criminal trespass if someone enters an unlocked gate and takes a normal path to a door to contact the resident. Now as to the asking to leave that wasn't clearly stated in the original post and unless there was some other evidence it would come down to he said he said thus while A 2 may have been met how would it be provable in a court?

come on Ellis, I seriously doubt that the homeowner is just going to stand there while the bounty hunter is violating their personal property and threatening their dogs without at the very least demanding the BH leave.

Actually, at least initially, it wouldn't surprise me at all. I would imagine initially he was trying to figure out what the heck was going on. But honestly it doesn't really matter for criminal trespass charges. They may have absolutely committed criminal trespass, but if there is also absolutely no way to ever prove that then the declaration that someone someone trespassed really means nothing. Even if you could prove he told them to leave what is the time allowed for the trespassing parties to leave? The don't have to sprint for the property line but they can't stop and smoke a cig before leaving. So is a little talk back and forth before leaving enough to create a criminal trespass? Well that's kind of a matter of fact for a jury to decide and for the most part not really determinable with the info given. It would be a "best guess" based on situation. I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. It's just that people have the wrong idea about how criminal trespass works here.

E.Marquez wrote:
So you actually don't know any case law to cite

Ok thats what i figured, but I thought it only considerate to ask and not assume.

No I do not have the notations and text of that, or any, precedent memorized and available to quote on demand.

Glockster wrote:
And how is it that A 1 AND A2 were not met? It was posted and they were also told to leave.

For whatever reason regardless if posted it's not considered criminal trespass if someone enters an unlocked gate and takes a normal path to a door to contact the resident. Now as to the asking to leave that wasn't clearly stated in the original post and unless there was some other evidence it would come down to he said he said thus while A 2 may have been met how would it be provable in a court?

E.Marquez wrote:So Im not a legal expert, not even as educated as well as I would like to be..
PC 30.05 states in part
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... OzOGX.dpuf

(a), (1) & (2) in red.. are both of those points of law required to make it trespassing?
or just, 1, the other or both?

You need A and either 1 or 2

E.Marquez wrote:
What case law are you referring to then?
Not trying to be dense, we are discussion trespassing by a Bounty Hunter (or maybe it's not trespassing??)
You seemed to imply a closed gate and No trespassing signs clearly posted do not meet the law's requirements to charge a person with trespassing and that there is "plentiful Texas case law about this."

So I ask.. What case law supports your position ..so I may read it for myself...
This is not a joke, not a troll, nothing negative..at all.. My apologies if you misunderstood and took it that way.

I'm not spending my time looking it up. Suffice to say if you wouldn't throw a girl scout, and that is an example used in one opinion, in jail for knocking on your door trying to sell you cookies then anyone who knocks on your door for a lawful purpose also gets a pass. That they call themselves bounty hunters makes no real legal difference. (the exception would be if it was considered by a DA that the purpose of the bounty hunters was illegal on it's fact then entering into posted property would be criminal trespass)

E.Marquez wrote:"if they went to knock on the door you can't get a criminal trespass. There is plentiful Texas case law about this."
Can you point us to the case law on bounty hunters coming to a residence at night to a property not owned or lived at by the bail jumper who was acquitted or otherwise case dropped, not found guilty of trespassing having passed a closed gate and no trespassing signs?

Thanks

Are you joking? You have to know it doesn't work like that. I mean go ahead and believe anything you want but for everyone else if you want to successfully prosecute someone for trespassing you need a locked gate.

Glockster wrote:

EEllis wrote:No they can't ignore a no trespass sign but generally speaking, sign or not, going up and knocking at a door is not tresspassing. If it's ok for the mail carrier, UPS, or Fed EX to walk up then anyone can. When someone gets bonded out they do give up some right but that only goes for their rights. No one else's.

I disagree - commercial carriers or USPS in delivering your packages or mail have been given by you at least implicit permission to do so. The same for a utility services meter reader as you would have authorized that as a term of services. As for someone else trespassing by coming to your door, I think that depends upon where you have it posted. If you have a fence around your yard and a gate, and it is posted, then passing that point I believe would be trespass as your property is not open to the public. If it is just the door posted, then I believe that it is at that point that the potential for trespass begins. So I think that it depends upon where and how the notice is given, and here the OP didn't say where the signs were or the other conditions.

Doesn't matter. Look it's not what we think it should be, it's what the courts have said. In a case like this if they went to knock on the door you can't get a criminal trespass. There is plentiful Texas case law about this.

No they can't ignore a no trespass sign but generally speaking, sign or not, going up and knocking at a door is not tresspassing. If it's ok for the mail carrier, UPS, or Fed EX to walk up then anyone can. When someone gets bonded out they do give up some right but that only goes for their rights. No one else's.