Agent wants bounty hunters regulated
Mark Schlachtenhaufen
The Edmond Sun
EDMOND June 25, 2009 01:59 am
— Oklahoma law does not require bounty hunters to obtain a license, and a metro bail bondsman wants that changed.
Fugitives are present in every major city across the country, including Edmond. Regardless of their offense, they are fleeing from custody.
Cable television’s “Dog The Bounty Hunter,” which features heart-stopping fugitive pickups orchestrated by Duane “Dog” Chapman and his team, has increased interest in bounty hunting. The terms bounty hunter and bondsman are used interchangeably.
However, some metro bondsmen, who have made captures here, prefer to be called bail enforcement agents. They say there’s a difference between licensed professionals and the actions of some unlicensed bounty hunters who have harmed their profession’s reputation.
David Dunn, an investigator with Oklahoma City’s Abraham’s Bail Bonds, said in Oklahoma anyone of age can go to a bondsman, say they want to do pick ups and the bondsman can hire them.
“Then they can hunt,” Dunn said. “That doesn’t mean that they’ve had any training. They are not required to know anything about bail bond law, which tells you why you’re able to do what you can do.”
Dunn said the Oklahoma Association of Bail Enforcement Agents has interest in getting bounty hunter legislation passed and support from the Oklahoma Bondsman Association is growing. The OBA provides pre-licensing and continuing education courses.
Dunn said he would like to see bounty hunter licensure and specific training related to bail enforcement agent work, which includes investigative tasks, surveillance and orchestrating the “pick up” of fugitives, which can be dangerous.
One issue is finding a bounty hunter regulator, whether that be the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training or the Oklahoma Insurance Department, which currently regulates bondsmen, said Dudley Goolsby Jr., OBA president.
Goolsby said the OBA does not want to rush the process and he wants fair, even-handed legislation without harmful unintended consequences.
Dunn said persistence is needed to get legislation passed. Dunn said he has had discussions with several metro police departments who support licensure for bounty hunters, which would help them know they are dealing with a knowledgeable bondsman.
Bondsman Gary Duke said bail enforcement agents save taxpayers money because what they do doesn’t cost taxpayers any money and it gets fugitives off the streets. Without their help, more fugitive task force workers would be needed, he said.
“They can’t handle all of them,” said Duke, a bondsman for 10 years. “There’s just too many.”
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Another silly Bounty Hunter
WOONSOCKET, R.I. — Two men who tried creating a bounty hunting business have found themselves hunted by the law in Rhode Island.
Brandon Johnson and Ronald Cervantes surrendered to police Tuesday and face charges of simple assault and breaking into a house without consent.
The men started a company called New England Bounty Hunters by paying $235 to a Web site. In return, they got purported bounty hunter badges and identifications.
Police said the men entered the home last month of a woman wanted on a warrant, then brought her to the Cumberland police station. The woman later complained to Woonsocket police.
Cervantes has left the bounty hunting business and pleaded not guilty to the charges. His attorney said he did nothing illegal. A phone listing for Johnson could not be located.
Brandon Johnson and Ronald Cervantes surrendered to police Tuesday and face charges of simple assault and breaking into a house without consent.
The men started a company called New England Bounty Hunters by paying $235 to a Web site. In return, they got purported bounty hunter badges and identifications.
Police said the men entered the home last month of a woman wanted on a warrant, then brought her to the Cumberland police station. The woman later complained to Woonsocket police.
Cervantes has left the bounty hunting business and pleaded not guilty to the charges. His attorney said he did nothing illegal. A phone listing for Johnson could not be located.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
GPS Tracker Rulling in NY
In a 4-to-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the State Police violated a criminal suspect’s rights under the State Constitution when it placed a GPS tracking device inside the bumper of his van without obtaining a warrant.
The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver.
In three written opinions, the judges on the court debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.
In the early morning on Dec. 21, 2005, a State Police investigator crawled under Mr. Weaver’s van, parked on the street, and placed a GPS tracking device, known as a Q-ball, inside the bumper. It remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the location of the van.
It was not clear why Mr. Weaver, of Watervliet, N.Y., was placed under electronic surveillance, but he was eventually tried for two burglaries: in July 2005 at the Latham Meat Market, and in December 2005 at a Kmart in the same hamlet in Albany County.
A jury convicted Mr. Weaver of two counts relating to the burglary of the Kmart but acquitted him of the counts pertaining to the meat market burglary. (GPS evidence had only showed that Mr. Weaver’s van crossed the parking lot of the Kmart hours before the burglary; he was never spotted behind the wheel, and was convicted in part on the testimony of a witness who said Mr. Weaver, now 41, had used the van to scout out the Kmart before going back to commit the crime later.)
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman cited a 1983 United States Supreme Court case in which government agents had placed a beeper in a five-gallon drum of chloroform to track the container’s movements. The beeper was used to help the agents keep visual track of the vehicle carrying the container. In that case, the court found that the driver of the vehicle had no reasonable expectation of privacy since the van’s movements were visible for all to see. Judge Lippman distinguished the Knotts case from Mr. Weaver’s situation this way:
Here, we are not presented with the use of a mere beeper to facilitate visual surveillance during a single trip. GPS is a vastly different and exponentially more sophisticated and powerful technology that is easily and cheaply deployed and has virtually unlimited and remarkably precise tracking capability. With the addition of new GPS satellites, the technology is rapidly improving so that any person or object, such as a car, may be tracked with uncanny accuracy to virtually any interior or exterior location, at any time and regardless of atmospheric conditions. Constant, relentless tracking of anything is now not merely possible but entirely practicable, indeed much more practicable than the surveillance conducted in Knotts. GPS is not a mere enhancement of human sensory capacity, it facilitates a new technological perception of the world in which the situation of any object may be followed and exhaustively recorded over, in most cases, a practically unlimited period. The potential for a similar capture of information or “seeing” by law enforcement would require, at a minimum, millions of additional police officers and cameras on every street lamp.
The judge also raised the specter of GPS being used to penetrate every part of a person’s private life:
One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person’s progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit’s batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations — political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few — and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits. When multiple GPS devices are utilized, even more precisely resolved inferences about our activities are possible. And, with GPS becoming an increasingly routine feature in cars and cell phones, it will be possible to tell from the technology with ever increasing precision who we are and are not with, when we are and are not with them, and what we do and do not carry on our persons — to mention just a few of the highly feasible empirical configurations.
The judge added the ruling had no bearing on federal cases, because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled upon whether the use of GPS by the state in criminal investigations constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and most federal appellate courts have not addressed the issue.
“In light of the unsettled state of federal law on the issue, we premise our ruling on our State Constitution alone,” Judge Lippman wrote, citing similar decisions in Washington State and Oregon. He was joined by Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Eugene F. Pigott Jr. and Theodore T. Jones.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert S. Smith acknowledged the newness and greater efficiency of GPS devices but defended the legitimacy of the search. “The proposition that some devices are too modern and sophisticated to be used freely in police investigation is not a defensible rule of constitutional law,” he wrote.
Judge Smith wrote that while “I do not care for the idea of a police officer — or anyone else — sneaking under someone’s car in the middle of the night to attach a tracking device,” the State Police only violated Mr. Weaver’s property rights, not his right to privacy.
And in another dissenting opinion, Judge Susan P. Read argued that it should be up to the Legislature, not the courts, to restrict the use of GPS devices by law enforcement, and she argued that the use of GPS was not legally distinct from traditional physical surveillance.
Judge Read also concurred with Judge Smith’s dissenting opinion, and Judge Victoria A. Graffeo concurred with both dissenting opinions.
The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver.
In three written opinions, the judges on the court debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.
In the early morning on Dec. 21, 2005, a State Police investigator crawled under Mr. Weaver’s van, parked on the street, and placed a GPS tracking device, known as a Q-ball, inside the bumper. It remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the location of the van.
It was not clear why Mr. Weaver, of Watervliet, N.Y., was placed under electronic surveillance, but he was eventually tried for two burglaries: in July 2005 at the Latham Meat Market, and in December 2005 at a Kmart in the same hamlet in Albany County.
A jury convicted Mr. Weaver of two counts relating to the burglary of the Kmart but acquitted him of the counts pertaining to the meat market burglary. (GPS evidence had only showed that Mr. Weaver’s van crossed the parking lot of the Kmart hours before the burglary; he was never spotted behind the wheel, and was convicted in part on the testimony of a witness who said Mr. Weaver, now 41, had used the van to scout out the Kmart before going back to commit the crime later.)
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman cited a 1983 United States Supreme Court case in which government agents had placed a beeper in a five-gallon drum of chloroform to track the container’s movements. The beeper was used to help the agents keep visual track of the vehicle carrying the container. In that case, the court found that the driver of the vehicle had no reasonable expectation of privacy since the van’s movements were visible for all to see. Judge Lippman distinguished the Knotts case from Mr. Weaver’s situation this way:
Here, we are not presented with the use of a mere beeper to facilitate visual surveillance during a single trip. GPS is a vastly different and exponentially more sophisticated and powerful technology that is easily and cheaply deployed and has virtually unlimited and remarkably precise tracking capability. With the addition of new GPS satellites, the technology is rapidly improving so that any person or object, such as a car, may be tracked with uncanny accuracy to virtually any interior or exterior location, at any time and regardless of atmospheric conditions. Constant, relentless tracking of anything is now not merely possible but entirely practicable, indeed much more practicable than the surveillance conducted in Knotts. GPS is not a mere enhancement of human sensory capacity, it facilitates a new technological perception of the world in which the situation of any object may be followed and exhaustively recorded over, in most cases, a practically unlimited period. The potential for a similar capture of information or “seeing” by law enforcement would require, at a minimum, millions of additional police officers and cameras on every street lamp.
The judge also raised the specter of GPS being used to penetrate every part of a person’s private life:
One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person’s progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit’s batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations — political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few — and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits. When multiple GPS devices are utilized, even more precisely resolved inferences about our activities are possible. And, with GPS becoming an increasingly routine feature in cars and cell phones, it will be possible to tell from the technology with ever increasing precision who we are and are not with, when we are and are not with them, and what we do and do not carry on our persons — to mention just a few of the highly feasible empirical configurations.
The judge added the ruling had no bearing on federal cases, because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled upon whether the use of GPS by the state in criminal investigations constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and most federal appellate courts have not addressed the issue.
“In light of the unsettled state of federal law on the issue, we premise our ruling on our State Constitution alone,” Judge Lippman wrote, citing similar decisions in Washington State and Oregon. He was joined by Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Eugene F. Pigott Jr. and Theodore T. Jones.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert S. Smith acknowledged the newness and greater efficiency of GPS devices but defended the legitimacy of the search. “The proposition that some devices are too modern and sophisticated to be used freely in police investigation is not a defensible rule of constitutional law,” he wrote.
Judge Smith wrote that while “I do not care for the idea of a police officer — or anyone else — sneaking under someone’s car in the middle of the night to attach a tracking device,” the State Police only violated Mr. Weaver’s property rights, not his right to privacy.
And in another dissenting opinion, Judge Susan P. Read argued that it should be up to the Legislature, not the courts, to restrict the use of GPS devices by law enforcement, and she argued that the use of GPS was not legally distinct from traditional physical surveillance.
Judge Read also concurred with Judge Smith’s dissenting opinion, and Judge Victoria A. Graffeo concurred with both dissenting opinions.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
chicagotribune.com
Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
2:42 PM CDT, May 7, 2009
MADISON, Wis.
Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday. However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals. As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects. Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison. That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote. One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior. The ruling came in a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, a Madison man who was under investigation for stalking. Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum's driveway. The device recorded his car's movements for five weeks before police retrieved it and downloaded the information. The information suggested Sveum was stalking the woman, who had gone to police earlier with suspicions. Police got a second warrant to search his car and home, found more evidence and arrested him. He was convicted of stalking and sentenced to prison. Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage. The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote. Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place. "We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote. Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added. Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant. "The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want." Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, which argued in favor of the warrantless GPS tracking, praised the ruling but would not elaborate on its use in Wisconsin. David Banaszynski, president of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, said his department in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood does not use GPS. But other departments might use it to track drug dealers, burglars and stalkers, he said. A state law already requires the Department of Corrections to track the state's most dangerous sex offenders using GPS. The author of that law, Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the decision shows "GPS tracking is an effective means of protecting public safety."
Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
2:42 PM CDT, May 7, 2009
MADISON, Wis.
Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday. However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals. As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects. Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison. That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote. One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior. The ruling came in a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, a Madison man who was under investigation for stalking. Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum's driveway. The device recorded his car's movements for five weeks before police retrieved it and downloaded the information. The information suggested Sveum was stalking the woman, who had gone to police earlier with suspicions. Police got a second warrant to search his car and home, found more evidence and arrested him. He was convicted of stalking and sentenced to prison. Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage. The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote. Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place. "We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote. Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added. Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant. "The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want." Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, which argued in favor of the warrantless GPS tracking, praised the ruling but would not elaborate on its use in Wisconsin. David Banaszynski, president of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, said his department in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood does not use GPS. But other departments might use it to track drug dealers, burglars and stalkers, he said. A state law already requires the Department of Corrections to track the state's most dangerous sex offenders using GPS. The author of that law, Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the decision shows "GPS tracking is an effective means of protecting public safety."
Friday, May 8, 2009
Bounty Hunter Indicted
Grand jury indicts bogus ‘bounty hunter’
BEN MOOK
Daily Record Business Writer
May 7, 2009 7:33 PM
An Oxon Hill man claiming to be a "bounty hunter" for the U.S. Department of Justice with access to cheap houses and confiscated computers was indicted by a federal grand jury for swindling nearly $9,000 from three women. John Angus Milton McBean Jr., 41, of Oxon Hill, was indicted Wednesday on a single count of impersonating a federal officer for accepting money orders from the U.S. Postal Service while claiming to be a federal employee. The offense carries a maximum penalty of three years in jail. According to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Postal Inspector Dean Davis was approached by a woman in June 2007 who said she first met McBean at a new-car dealership where he bragged he had just gotten off of a tour with a famous gospel recording artist. McBean, who said his name was John Holliday, told the woman that in addition to being a bounty hunter he owned several cars and beauty salons in New York, North Carolina and Florida. He also mentioned he had access to discounted housing and confiscated equipment through his law enforcement work. “McBean told her that he was a bounty hunter with the Department of Justice responsible for tracking down fugitives and that he had worked undercover, knocked down doors and arrested people,” Dean wrote in the criminal complaint. “McBean also said that his job provided him with access to computers, cars and homes, which he could get without going through all the red tape.” According to the complaint, McBean also told the woman he could help with her mortgage payment. She did not have enough for the monthly payment so McBean allegedly took $2,600 in cash from her and said he would use his “special benefits with the government” to supplement the balance of the mortgage payment. The woman received a letter from her mortgage company a few weeks later that payment had never been made. Around the same time McBean was working with the first woman, he was talking to her friend who gave him $550 as a down payment for a new computer and some specialized stock market and mortgage software. The woman said the computer never showed up. The second woman also said she approached McBean about utilizing his law enforcement discount to find housing for her son. She told Dean she gave McBean postal money orders for $3,200 to get into the program. McBean cashed the money orders, but never got back in touch with the woman. A third victim, the mother of the woman looking to buy the computer, also told Dean she gave McBean money for a house. She said she paid McBean $2,400 through two USPS money orders. A check of the money orders showed they had been cashed and had McBean’s driver’s license number written on them, prosecutors allege. The woman told Dean she never heard back from McBean. A search of federal and county court records shows that at the time McBean was reportedly taking money from the three women, he had already been indicted on two charges of impersonating a federal officer. In August 2007, he was sentenced to 18 months in jail.
BEN MOOK
Daily Record Business Writer
May 7, 2009 7:33 PM
An Oxon Hill man claiming to be a "bounty hunter" for the U.S. Department of Justice with access to cheap houses and confiscated computers was indicted by a federal grand jury for swindling nearly $9,000 from three women. John Angus Milton McBean Jr., 41, of Oxon Hill, was indicted Wednesday on a single count of impersonating a federal officer for accepting money orders from the U.S. Postal Service while claiming to be a federal employee. The offense carries a maximum penalty of three years in jail. According to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Postal Inspector Dean Davis was approached by a woman in June 2007 who said she first met McBean at a new-car dealership where he bragged he had just gotten off of a tour with a famous gospel recording artist. McBean, who said his name was John Holliday, told the woman that in addition to being a bounty hunter he owned several cars and beauty salons in New York, North Carolina and Florida. He also mentioned he had access to discounted housing and confiscated equipment through his law enforcement work. “McBean told her that he was a bounty hunter with the Department of Justice responsible for tracking down fugitives and that he had worked undercover, knocked down doors and arrested people,” Dean wrote in the criminal complaint. “McBean also said that his job provided him with access to computers, cars and homes, which he could get without going through all the red tape.” According to the complaint, McBean also told the woman he could help with her mortgage payment. She did not have enough for the monthly payment so McBean allegedly took $2,600 in cash from her and said he would use his “special benefits with the government” to supplement the balance of the mortgage payment. The woman received a letter from her mortgage company a few weeks later that payment had never been made. Around the same time McBean was working with the first woman, he was talking to her friend who gave him $550 as a down payment for a new computer and some specialized stock market and mortgage software. The woman said the computer never showed up. The second woman also said she approached McBean about utilizing his law enforcement discount to find housing for her son. She told Dean she gave McBean postal money orders for $3,200 to get into the program. McBean cashed the money orders, but never got back in touch with the woman. A third victim, the mother of the woman looking to buy the computer, also told Dean she gave McBean money for a house. She said she paid McBean $2,400 through two USPS money orders. A check of the money orders showed they had been cashed and had McBean’s driver’s license number written on them, prosecutors allege. The woman told Dean she never heard back from McBean. A search of federal and county court records shows that at the time McBean was reportedly taking money from the three women, he had already been indicted on two charges of impersonating a federal officer. In August 2007, he was sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bounty Hunter Hits Target With His Car!
April 30, 2009
Bounty hunter chases, strikes fugitive with SUVBy MARGARET F.BONAFIDE
A New York bounty hunter, spotting the fugitive he was seeking walking across Route 70, made a U-turn in the sport-utility vehicle he was driving and chased the supposed bail-jumper, hitting two cars before striking the man, police and a witness said.
The man sought by the bounty hunter was Rodney Cutler, 39, of Warren Street, Lakewood, who was wanted on an arrest warrant carrying a $2,200 detainer, Police Chief Michael G. Mastronardy said. Cutler was in the area of Route 70 and Massachusetts Avenue when he was seen by bounty hunter George Eshareturi, 25, of the Bronx about 6 p.m. Wednesday, Mastronardy said.
After Eshareturi made the U-turn to go after Cutler, he traveled the wrong way in a traffic lane on Route 70, Mastronardy said. At one point, Eshareturi drove through a Wawa convenience store parking lot, a witness said. Eshareturi's SUV struck Cutler after hitting two cars on the highway, police said.
Eshareturi had Cutler on the ground and in handcuffs when police arrived.
It is unclear where Eshareturi had initially spotted Cutler, Mastronardy said.
Toms River Police EMS transported Cutler to Community Medical Center, here, for treatment of a leg injury, Mastronardy said.
Dona Spangenberg, 45, of Brick said she was in a car going west on Route 70 when she saw the commotion.
The SUV was traveling west, then made a U-turn and came east in the westbound lanes, she said. The pedestrian, later identified by police as Cutler, was crossing Route 70, and the SUV started chasing him, Spangenberg said.
The SUV cut through a Wawa gasoline station to chase the pedestrian, Spangenberg said.
Cutler is under arrest on the warrant. Eshareturi was taken to police headquarters, and charges against him are pending, Mastronardy said.
Patrolman Gary Flynn of the Traffic Safety Bureau is investigating, assisted by Patrolmen Richard Buhowski and Robert Burczykre.
Bounty hunter chases, strikes fugitive with SUVBy MARGARET F.BONAFIDE
A New York bounty hunter, spotting the fugitive he was seeking walking across Route 70, made a U-turn in the sport-utility vehicle he was driving and chased the supposed bail-jumper, hitting two cars before striking the man, police and a witness said.
The man sought by the bounty hunter was Rodney Cutler, 39, of Warren Street, Lakewood, who was wanted on an arrest warrant carrying a $2,200 detainer, Police Chief Michael G. Mastronardy said. Cutler was in the area of Route 70 and Massachusetts Avenue when he was seen by bounty hunter George Eshareturi, 25, of the Bronx about 6 p.m. Wednesday, Mastronardy said.
After Eshareturi made the U-turn to go after Cutler, he traveled the wrong way in a traffic lane on Route 70, Mastronardy said. At one point, Eshareturi drove through a Wawa convenience store parking lot, a witness said. Eshareturi's SUV struck Cutler after hitting two cars on the highway, police said.
Eshareturi had Cutler on the ground and in handcuffs when police arrived.
It is unclear where Eshareturi had initially spotted Cutler, Mastronardy said.
Toms River Police EMS transported Cutler to Community Medical Center, here, for treatment of a leg injury, Mastronardy said.
Dona Spangenberg, 45, of Brick said she was in a car going west on Route 70 when she saw the commotion.
The SUV was traveling west, then made a U-turn and came east in the westbound lanes, she said. The pedestrian, later identified by police as Cutler, was crossing Route 70, and the SUV started chasing him, Spangenberg said.
The SUV cut through a Wawa gasoline station to chase the pedestrian, Spangenberg said.
Cutler is under arrest on the warrant. Eshareturi was taken to police headquarters, and charges against him are pending, Mastronardy said.
Patrolman Gary Flynn of the Traffic Safety Bureau is investigating, assisted by Patrolmen Richard Buhowski and Robert Burczykre.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Bounty Hunter Shot in Houston
Bounty hunter shot while trying to serve warrant
By DALE LEZONCopyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
April 8, 2009, 10:25PM
Stephanie Hinojosa woke to someone banging on her front door early Wednesday morning at her northwest Harris County home. Then she heard her 29-year-old brother walk out of his bedroom, cock a gun, open the door and fire two shots.
“He screamed, ‘What are you doing?’, ” she said.
She later learned that her brother had shot one of several bounty hunters who were outside her family’s home in the 11600 block of Lynda.
Jesus Hinojosa told KHOU-TV that he was protecting his family. The bounty hunter, identified by his employer as Tyson Kennedy, is in the hospital with a gunshot wound in the stomach.
At least four bounty hunters were at the home about 3:15 a.m. trying to serve a felony warrant for a man who is wanted for driving while intoxicated, said Lt. John Legg, spokesman for the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.
Jesus Hinojosa could not be reached for comment. He told KHOU on Wednesday that he thought his family was being robbed.
“I feel bad for the guy, but I just thought they were trying to hurt my family. I mean, what would you do? You open your door at 3:30 in the morning and you see guns pointed in your face? I mean, I think I did the right thing,” Hinojosa said.
A supervisor with 24/7 Security Investigations said the bounty hunters had been searching throughout the night for Jesus Ramirez, 35, who had been charged with third-offense felony DWI in January 2008. His bond, originally set at $35,000, was revoked after he missed a court appearance in March 2008.
The man was not at the home, Legg said.
The lieutenant said the bounty hunters were dressed in black and would have been difficult to identify as legitimate bond-forfeiture agents.
They walked to the home quietly to avoid being heard, but it appears they operated legally, Legg said. They were not carrying guns, although they did have pepper spray and Tasers.
Clinton Epps, with 24/7 Security Investigations, said they were unarmed.
“We did not draw any weapons. There were no weapons found,” Epps said. “They guy that knocked on the door had a flashlight.”
Sheriff’s officials said they are investigating the case and no charges have been filed.
Stephanie Hinojosa said she and her family thought the bounty hunters were robbers trying to break in.
“We didn’t know who they were,” she said.
Epps said the bounty hunters knocked on the door and announced that they were bail enforcement officers searching for Ramirez.
“We go by the book,” he said. “These guys are trained professionals.”
Epps said Jesus Hinojosa began firing even before he opened the front door.
“That’s when everybody started moving back,” Epps said.
Kennedy, 33, was in the front yard when he was shot in the stomach. He was taken by LifeFlight to Memorial Hermann-The Texas Medical Center, Epps said.
No other shots were fired and no other injuries were reported.
Epps said they were hired by Alamo Bail Bonds to find Ramirez.
Hinojosa said she later learned that the man they were looking for was her mother’s ex-boyfriend. She said Ramirez used to visit her mother, who lives at the home, but had not been in touch with the family for at least three months.
Ramirez’s mother and sister listed the home on Lynda as a possible location where he lived when they applied for the bond last year.
“If they hadn’t put the address down, we wouldn’t have been there,” Epps said.
It was the fifth location they had been to that night in the search for Ramirez, Epps said.
Wednesday afternoon Hinojosa said she was still uneasy about the shooting and the bounty hunters.
“I’m sacred because I feel like they are going to come back,” she said. “And I think, ‘What if my brother hadn’t been here?’ What would I have done?’ ”
According to Harris County criminal records, Ramirez was still at large Wednesday night.
dale.lezon@chron.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
