On October 1, 2011, California’s new realignment plan Assembly Bill 109 or AB 109 took effect, beginning a transfer of more than 30,000 state inmates to local county jails and  supervision.  The idea is that shifting prisoners from overcrowded California state prisons will save money, however the effect of this change will lead to jail overcrowding and increase the costs of local law enforcement already stretched too thin.  According to an LA Times story on Nov. 11, Los Angeles County’s jails could run out of space as early as the next month due to realignment

Despite these added responsibilities, counties have not been guaranteed long-term funding for the Realignment Plan. In fact, existing monies will run out in June but this fact does not relieve them of their new obligation to house and monitor these new felons.  The private bail industry has been a valuable part of the criminal justice system for more than 100 years — guaranteeing that defendants released from jail show up at their required court dates to ensure that justice is served, and doing so at no cost to taxpayers.  Bail can and does help relieve jail overcrowding. Surety bail preserves constitutional rights, and doesn’t pass the cost onto California taxpayers.

Compared with other alternatives being considered to deal with jail overcrowding, including GPS tracking and released on own recognizance, surety bail is more cost effective because it can save counties millions of dollars every year on the high cost of managing, tracking and apprehending fugitives.  Bail provides financial accountability for the defendants and helps build a support network by requiring friends and family members to co-sign and put up collateral for the bond.  Studies show that defendants released on bail are more likely to appear in court and less likely to commit crimes while awaiting trial.

Faced with limited funding and the need for increased offender accountability, bail offers a viable solution as a proven, tested, cost-effective tool that protects taxpayers and public safety.

Bounty hunting or what is referred by the legal system as “fugitive recovery services” is a term that now evokes images of the wild-west or the likes of “Dog” the Bounty Hunter made popular by the television series on bounty hunting. This semi-fictional character which portends to be reality TV, gives the industry a bad name. If Bounty Hunters were like “Dog”, California bondsman would all be sued for civil rights violations.  The fact is that bounty hunting is very much a part of the American system of justice today.

In the US, bounty hunting is rooted in the bail bonds process.  If the terms of bail are broken, a bail agent is authorized to find and return the defendant to police custody, hence the need for bounty hunting.  A bail bondsman can do their own bounty hunting or contract with an individual or company that is licensed to provide bounty hunting services.

In September 1999, California enacted law A 243 regulating bounty hunters, termed “bail fugitive recovery persons” in the statute. This law added section 1299 to the California Penal Code. The bail fugitive recovery person is defined as one who has written authorization by a bail agent contracted to investigate, monitor, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive for surrender to appropriate authorities, or any person employed to assist in the arrest of such a fugitive.  Certification for fugitive recovery was granted only to those who could demonstrate knowledge of state laws and can pass a background check could work as bounty hunters.

Unfortunately, CPC 1299 had a sunset clause and the California State Legislature allowed it to lapse. California no longer has control over the bounty hunters and the bail industry is in an uproar over this. The legitimate bail agencies want to see restrictions and rules governing bounty hunters. The bail bonds industry in California is imploring the state legislature to re-enact CPC 1299; for the protection of public safety and common sense.