holding that California’s version of the UCEA “abrogates the foreign bondsman’s common law right to pursue, apprehend and remove his [or her] principal from California without resort to process” and “interjects a mandatory series of court proceedings” which a foreign bondsman must follow to obtain a warrant to arrest and remove a fugitive from bail from another jurisdiction
How later courts described this case
- holding that California’s version of the UCEA “abrogates the foreign bondsman’s common law right to pursue, apprehend and remove his [or her] principal from California without resort to process” and “interjects a mandatory series of court proceedings” which a foreign bondsman must follow to obtain a warrant to arrest and remove a fugitive from bail from another jurisdiction
- recognizing that “the bail bondsman is in the business in order to make money and . . . [is] acting ‘to protect his own private financial interest and not to vindicate the interest of the state.’”
- refusing to find that bail bondsman acts as unofficial agent, partner or arm of the State court in bringing fugitives to justice, where state courts have their own official arms for capturing fugitives and bondsman’s private reclamation interests and procedures are completely separate from those of the state
- holding that Nevada bondsmen were not state actors, where the bondsmen unilaterally seized principal in California and returned principal to Nevada
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Judge Hufstedler. I also concur in the dissenting opinion of Judge Merrill, insofar as it holds that the action of the defendants was also taken under color of Nevada law.