Utah Supreme Courts Rules in Bounty Hunter Case

The Utah Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the out-of-state bounty hunter case previously covered here. The court ruled reviewed whether licensed out-of state bounty hunters were allowed to capture fugitives in Utah and ruled that Langley, a Colorado licensed bounty hunter, could apprehend fugitives in Utah. The high court unanimously ruled that Lee, the criminal defendant, had expressly consented to out of state capture in the bail contract he signed. The court said in its ruling, “Not only does bail advance the societal interest in not depriving accused parties of their liberty while they still enjoy the presumption of innocence, but it also contributes to the practical need to spare our citizens the expense of confining all defendants while they await trial.” The court also said, “Utah has a strong interest in seeing that fugitives from its criminal justice system are apprehended, an interest that is at risk of being compromised if our state erects unnecessary barriers to the enforcement of bail contracts. The converse is also true. There is little to recommend the prospect of making Utah a safe haven for out-of-state fugitives by making it increasingly difficult for bail recovery agents from other states to track defendants into Utah.” In its conclusion the Utah Supreme Court upheld the appellant decision that Langley may have violated Utah law in the apprehension of Lee (by not having a Utah license-a misdemeanor offense) is irrelevant when evaluating the separate relationship that arose from the bail contracts. The enforcement of the bail contracts by a bail recovery agent, unlicensed but qualified for licensure in Utah, did not violate the public policy of Utah.