Bounty Hunters Are Not Above the Law

Two Mississippi bounty hunters blamed for a awakening a Sikeston couple in the middle of the night pleaded not guilty to felony charges against them in a Scott County court Wednesday.

Investigators say they were operating without a Missouri license.

Read more here.

In Starkville, Mississippi, Bondsmen See Less Business

The life of a bail bondsman isn't always easy.

The phone rings in the middle of the night and on the other end of the line is the voice of a prisoner -- or that prisoner's loved one -- who needs to get bailed out of jail.

Most, if not all, Starkville area bail bondsmen are used to getting those late night phone calls. So, as they've done so many times before, they head into the night to bail out yet another person.

Lately, local bondsmen have received fewer and fewer of those late night phone calls, and many say their businesses are suffering.

Since the city of Starkville contracted this June to house prisoners in Clay County jail when the Oktibbeha County jail is full, some bondsmen have seen business with city prisoners drop 50 percent to 75 percent.

As part of the city's contract with North Atlantic Extradition Services, which operates out of Clay County jail, the Starkville Police Department is guaranteed 15 extra beds each night at the West Point facility, at a cost of $35 per bed.

Because so many Starkville prisoners regularly get transported to Clay County, especially during circuit court sessions when the Oktibbeha County jail is full, local bail bond agents are losing out to their colleagues in West Point.

"Since they've done this, it's probably cut bonding by 50 percent," said Cynthia Hunt of Hunt Bonding.

Hunt wrote about 20 bonds per week for Starkville prisoners prior to the city's agreement with NAES, she said.

"Now I might get five," she said.

The availability of bondsmen in the West Point area is part of the reason Starkville bondsmen are missing out on the business.

When a suspect is arrested by the Starkville Police Department, he or she gets one phone call. Some suspects make their call at the city police station, while others make calls from Clay County jail.

Because West Point has its fair share of bonding agents, many prisoners who make calls from Clay County jail contact bondsmen already in the area instead of those in Starkville.

"If I was sitting in jail and it would take 30 minutes for a bondsman to get here, then there is a local bondsman I can call and it's going to take three minutes for them to get here, I'm going to call the local bondsman," said R.H Gilmer of A Bail Bondsman in Starkville.

Pat Quinn of Leigh's Bail Bonds in West Point, who deals regularly with Clay County jail, said business hasn't significantly picked up since Starkville started sending more of its prisoners to West Point.

"Actually, there hasn't been an increase in business," Quinn said. "It's been pretty steady."

The city's agreement with NAES only applies to prisoners picked up by the Starkville Police Department. The situation is a bit different with prisoners who are arrested by the Sheriff's Department or state agencies, such as Mississippi Highway Patrol.

"If a bail bondsman comes up here and said 'I want to get out Joe Blow,' and he's in Lowndes or Clay County, they'll start the bonding process here and we'll go pick him up and bring him back," said Oktibbeha County Sheriff's Department Deputy Chief George Carrithers. "We require all our bonds on (county) inmates to be made in Oktibbeha County."

Despite the conflict among local bail bondsmen, Starkville police Lt. Bill Lott said the concerns are unfounded. Lott said the agreement with NAES allows for more criminals to be locked up because, prior to the contract, Starkville police were allowing some offenders to remain free and only arrested the most violent criminals.

Now that more people are being put in jail, Lott said local bondsmen should have even more business, especially considering many prisoners make their one phone call before they're transported to Clay County.

"They get their phone call when they're here, so they have the opportunity to call a bondsman right here and then," Lott said. "If they can't get a bondsman here before the booking process is complete, they're going to West Point. So it would behoove them to call a local bondsman."

Bondsmen Sue County and Sheriff

A local bail bonding company has received a ruling from the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the plaintiffs to move forward with their federal lawsuit accusing Tunica County and Tunica County Sheriff KC Hamp of violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Owners of Hampton Company National Security LLC, James Hampton Gardner, and employee James Dean of Tunica filed a Section 1983 suit against Tunica County and Sheriff Hamp in 2006. The suits alleges violations of their constitutional rights under the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendments of the United States Constitution.

It was filed after owners and Dean claimed that Hamp removed their company name from the list of approved bail bondsmen, thereby taking their source of livelihood. According to court records, Hamp removed the plaintiffs from the list between February of 2005 through December of 2006. They claim their removal was caused by the sherifff’s retaliation “for Gardner and Dean’s participation in exposing illegal conduct by the prior sheriff, and for criticizing Hamp,” and that “the decision was racially motivated.”

Hamp argues that the Plaintiffs’ removal was because three criminal defendants they bonded failed to appear at a scheduled arraignment and that they did not follow proper procedure in obtaining a receipt from the Circuit Clerk proving those bond obligations had been met.

The case went before 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judges King, Higginbotham, and Southwick. In their ruling on Sept. 18, the trio gave the plaintiffs the right to proceed with the case.

“A surety company and two of its agents appeal from a summary judgment that dismissed their various Section 1983 claims,” the ruling states. “We affirm that part of the judgment that dismissed a Due Process claim against the sheriff who barred them from writing bail bonds in one county. Finding disputes of material fact, we reverse judgment on that same claim against the county, and on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims against both the sheriff and the county based on the same events...”

The 5th Circuit Court ruled that of relevance is that the plaintiffs are white Caucasian and Sheriff Hamp is African-American.

In 2007, U.S. District Judge Glen Davidson dismissed the suit against the county and sheriff stating that the sheriff had suspended both black and white bondsmen at the same time for similar reasons. Plaintiffs disagree arguing that while both companies produced the required remedies for misconduct, only their company remained suspended after doing so.

In the September 2008 ruling, the Court of Appeals stated that while Hamp falls under “Qualified Immunity” on the Due Process claim in barring their writing of bonds in Tunica County, Tunica County does not noting.The sheriff’s decision to deny the plaintiffs the right to issue bonds was noted as “the kind of single decision by the relevant policymaker that can be the basis of liability.”

The Court of Appeals further ruled that they do not dispute that Hamp prohibited the Plaintiffs from writing bonds in Tunica County, but did state that in dispute were the “sheriff’s reasons”.

The court also ruled that on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause claim were two components; the initial removal from the approved roster and the continued removal of the white bail bondsmen from the approved list while shortly after their removal, the black bail bondsmen were reinstated.

“There is no qualified immunity for racial discrimination as such discrimination is clearly unconstitutional. The County would also be liable if all the elements for municipal liability are shown. Consequently, we reverse judgment on the Equal Protection claim as to both defendants and remand,” the ruling states.

The final claim states that Hamp’s actions violated the plaintiffs’ first amendment rights . They allege that Hamp removed them from the list because they “assisted in the investigation of the predecessor sheriff regarding the extortion of bail-bonding companies, and because they sent a letter to the local newspaper editor expressing concern over Hamp’s handling of bail bondsmen and that an editorial was published only two months before the Plaintiffs were removed as approved bondsmen”. The Court of Appeals noted a prior case (Baldwin, 250 F.3d at 945) involving the Tunica County Sheriff that the Court of Appeals remanded to trial. In the cited case, the sheriff was found to have retaliated when bail bondsmen complained about how the sheriff handled bonds and ruled “the failure to reinstate the Plaintiff’s distinguishes the entire action by the sheriff against these plaintiffs from his entire action against the other bail bondsmen.” Summary judgement was not awarded in this matter.

During an interview with agent James Dean of Hampton Co National Surety LLC, Dean stated that he and owners have not yet been notified of the date their case will go to federal court. Facts discussed in this article were taken directly from court records posted online at www.ca5.uscourts.gov.

Bail Bond Business Bucks City Ordinance

Brandon will hold a public hearing next week to discuss a bail bonding company's attempt to move into a vacant downtown Brandon building.

New bail bonding businesses, along with tattoo parlors, check cashing businesses and others are forbidden by a city ordinance passed earlier this year.

City officials say the ordinance is designed to reinvent the area as an arts and antique district.

"I've always felt like we needed downtown to be a special area," alderwoman Yvonne Bianchi said. "In my opinion, there are enough bail bondsmen."

George Sandifer, owner of American National Bail Bonding Agency in Pearl, said he was denied a license, even though he applied for it the day before the ordinance took effect.

Sandifer spoke to the Brandon Board of Aldermen in April, but the business has been in limbo ever since.

"This thing was planned ahead of time, and it was planned to adhere to the historical society (exterior regulations)," he said. "I just feel like we should be allowed to proceed."

Sandifer said he doesn't feel that the spirit of the ordinance matches up with the reality of his business.

"We're not a fly-by-night outfit," he said. "Our offices are on the line of an attorney's office."

Sandifer said he thinks people may have an unfair stigma attached to their perception of the business.

(We're not) "like Dog the Bounty Hunter," Sandifer said of the A&E television personality. "I don't think that represents our line of work. We have a dress code. We're business people."

Sandifer said the business, which would be named American National Surety, would not feature a lighted sign or be open at night.

Bianchi said she's open to discussion about how the business may be different from others but said it will be a hard sell.

"They can call it whatever they wish, but it's still a bail bondsman," she said. "They're going to have to convince me that this is not going to take away from the concept that we have."

Alderman Tim Coulter, who has organized a downtown revitalization committee and is a supporter of the downtown ordinance, said he'd like to see a different business occupy the now-vacant building.

But Sandifer believes such an approach ignores one of the key features of Brandon's downtown: the Rankin County Jail and courthouse.

"Anywhere in the country, you're going to see these type of businesses near the court or the jail," he said.