Bail and pretrial release is a very important right- maybe.  I will concede that I am incorrect when I originally said that pretrial release and bail were not rights but privileges, but I found the basis for my statement at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/01.html#1 rather compelling.  The 8th Amendment of the American Bill of Rights states:: 

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  

 

But nothing in the 8th Amendment guarantees bail, it actually addresses "excessive bail."  You will not find a constitutional guarantee of bail in the 4th Amendment - Search and Seizure, 5th Amendment - Rights of Persons or 6th Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions either.  In fact if you read the Annotations of the 8th Amendment you will see that Bail is a "traditional right" and not a Constitutionally guaranteed right (though it may have become a State guaranteed right through further drafting while becoming state law).  Here is a copy of the introductory paragraph of the Annotations of the 8th Amendment:

 

"This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction. . . . Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.'' 1 ''The bail clause was lifted with slight changes from the English Bill of Rights Act. In England that clause has never been thought to accord a right to bail in all cases, but merely to provide that bail shall not be excessive in those cases where it is proper to grant bail. When this clause was carried over into our Bill of Rights, nothing was said that indicated any different concept.'' 2 These two contrasting views of the ''excessive bail'' provision, uttered by the Court in the same Term, reflect the ambiguity inherent in the phrase and the absence of evidence regarding the intent of those who drafted and who ratified the Eighth Amendment."

 

****I should then change my statement "Ultimately bail (pre-trial release) is not a right it is a privilege." to something like "Bail is not guaranteed to be afforded at the defendant's convenience."**** 

 

2.  Yes, the decision rendered in Taylor vs. Taintor has never been overturned or reversed- but it has been limited in scope by various State laws- defining who can be authorized as an agent of a bail bondsman, the procedure by which the apprehension of a bail secured defendant may be arrested, and interstate operations (hence the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act that 48 states have adopted).  I think that we will have to agree on that.  

 

3.  "As to your position that bondsmen shouldn't arrest their own skips, I am in complete disagreement."

 

Let me clarify- I did make the statement that I felt that the emotions of a bondsman facing a forfeiture can cause a problem, and that I had seen it a hundred times, but I did not say that a bondsman shouldn't arrest his own skips.  I don't feel that way- never have and never will.  It should be within the bondsman's ability to have total and unquestionable control over his charge (as affirmed in T v T), I did MEAN however that bail bondsmen are not always the right choice for handling the apprehension.  I stand behind that opinion 100%.

 

4.  "...there are many valid legal documents that do not have this requirement. (Signed confessions, after a defendant has been read their rights by a police officer, comes to mind almost immediately)." 

 

(To clarify this quote, we're talking about "Waivers of Extradition" here; the ones that many bail enforcement agents have the defendant sign when taking him or her out of one state and back to another where the Failure to Appear warrant originated.) 

 

Giving up one's Miranda Rights are afforded to police officers for 2 reasons:  First, giving up this right is made to a sworn law enforcement officer and secondly, for the purpose that a police officer "in fresh pursuit of a crime" needs to have immediate information concerning the nature of a criminal offense and to maintain the safety of the public.  This is laid out in the Miranda ruling- however Miranda does not apply to us because a) we are not in fresh pursuit of a crime and b) ours is the enforcement of a civil matter- the contractual nature between surety and defendant, therefore no criminal rights are being infringed (when done properly).  

 

Sure, there are many legal documents that can be signed without the presence of a judge (et al.).  However a "signed confession" can be made to anyone- you, me, the man who runs your local laundry stop, etc.  It is commonly referred to as a confession but it is more properly a "statement" containing admissions of guilt made by the suspect.   A viable statement is made by a person voluntarily.  I used to accept signed, legally valid statements as a corporate fraud investigator all the time.  Each one stood up in court as well- both criminal, while we were prosecuting the person, and civil, when we were pursuing civil restitution.  A statement containing a confession is not a legal action in which a person is transferring legal authority or giving up the inalienable right of liberty, etc.  A statement is NOT a legal document until it has been entered into the record at trial...it is "evidence," to which different standards apply. 

 

But why do lesser legal documents need to at least be notarized- isn't a "notary public" a legal officer with specific JUDICIAL AUTHORITY to attest to legal documents???

 

Why then would I have to have the title and bill of sale to my car notarized for it to be a legal transfer to another person but a defendant facing the prospect of giving up his rights against extradition to a civilian (after all we are not sworn law enforcement officers) requires no further safeguards?  Wouldn't a "Waiver of Extradition" be substantially more important than the title to my car?

 

HOOEY.  You know it and I know it.

 

Furthermore a legal opinion has already been established that the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which specifically addresses extradition for the purposes of criminal proceedings, applies to us as well.  I only have to go as far as the TN State Attorney General's written opinion (February 7, 2001 Opinion No. 01-020) to further support this argument (this is a snippet because it is rather lengthy and addresses many unrelated concerns)- 

 

"...Although Tennessee has retained the bail system, the arrest of an out-of-state fugitive may be exclusively governed by the UCEA. Just as the Tennessee Supreme Court held in Poteete v. Olive, 527 S.W.2d 84, 88 (Tenn. 1975) that “the bail’s power of arrest is prescribed exclusively by statute,” the arrest in Tennessee of an out-of-state fugitive may likely be found to be controlled exclusively by statute as enacted in the UCEA. Such an interpretation of Tennessee law would require that a bondsman or his agents conform with the provisions of the UCEA. Accordingly, it is the Opinion of this Office that bondsmen and their agents shall comply with the provisions of the UCEA when apprehending out-of-state fugitives in Tennessee."

 

The Tennessee version of the UCEA is spelled out in Tenn. Code Ann. § § 40-9-101 to 40-9-130 (1990); furthermore Tenn. Code Ann. §40-9-104 provides that, "following a lawful, warrantless arrest by a law enforcement officer or private citizen under this section, the accused must be taken before a judge or magistrate with all practicable speed and complaint must be made against him under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in the preceding section.” 

 

Unless you have sought a Governor's Warrant (also per the UCEA) ahead of your apprehension- ours is a "warrantless" arrest.

 

Wording similar to Tennessee's own law is part and parcel to the UCEA in every state that subscribes to it (MO and SC are currently the only exceptions), I've found it in Texas and Oklahoma law as well.

 

AND IN NO PART of any of the 3 codifications of these State's UCEA laws could I find that all of these carefully crafted rights and protections may be legally waived upon the written permission of the defendant made in the presence of a bounty hunter!!! 

 

In truth the Federal judge I spoke to concerning "Waivers of Extradition" neither cited a reason for his opinion, nor did I ask for one, when making the point that a person's right against extradition without a hearing can only be given up by that person in front of a judge (et al.).  Unfortunately, I do not have ready access to that man any longer- too much time has passed and I'd have to skip trace him... the idea of which I am not terribly fond given our country's current state of affairs, but I think that I may have already made my point with a citation from TN law. 

 

I guess I can look at it this way- I'd hate to be the guy that has to be strung up by the short hairs to either prove or disprove this judge's opinion.  Would any of us care to for that matter?

What's great about America is that we can all have our own opinions without fear of being summarily executed. Since we all have this right- I personally believe that we should all exercise it but at least with PASSION and after putting some appreciable thought or research into it.