the 1992 supreme court ruling

[stagetec]

doghunter can you tell us about this one, and can it have anything to do with chatmans problems down in mexico? If the U.S. really, really wants to get its hands on someone hiding in Mexico, authorities will just go in and take them. That's what happened in 1990 in a case involving a Mexican national and a crime committed in Mexico.

Humberto Alvarez-Machain, an obstetrician from Guadalajara, was accused by the U.S. of being present when American Drug Enforcement Agency investigator Enrique Camarena was tortured and murdered in 1985 while investigating links between Mexican officials and major drug cartels. When diplomatic efforts to bring Alvarez-Machain to justice failed, the U.S. recruited Mexican nationals to kidnap him and fly him to the U.S. for prosecution. (The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the prosecution as lawful in 1992, noting that official kidnappings are not addressed in any treaty.)

[Saint]

I received an IM about this case for more info... the case is described in my book, Bail Enforcement and the Law, of which the following is an exact except:

Too many self-styled bail enforcement agents I’ve met through the years advertise ‘Cross Border Operations’ or ‘Operations of a Discreet Nature’ on their letterheads and business cards. That’s because they have been told that by using that particular phraseology they will get cases that take them to exotic ports of call. Crap! Pure crap! The number of bail enforcement agents who successfully effect cross border operations can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand (most of the ones I’ve heard of either returned empty-handed or landed up in jail themselves).

The most infamous referral to bail enforcement agents capturing a fugitive on foreign soil is associated with the case of United States of America vs. Alberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican doctor (gynecologist), who was taken from his Guadalajara, Mexico office and flown to Texas on April 2nd, 1990. Dr. Machain is alleged to have used his skills to prolong the life of D.E.A. Agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar so others could continue to torture him prior to eventually murdering him during a 1985 interrogation by Mexican drug lords. Also killed was the agent's pilot, Alfredo Zavala Avelar, both bodies were found on March 5th 1985 in a field in the State of Michoacan in Mexico. The Doctor was returned to stand trial in the United States by two bounty hunters that paid $20,000.00 by the government of the United States for their expertise. The Mexican government immediately protested Dr. Machain’s abduction but their protestations went unheard by then President Bush.

This international incident uncovered a widespread drug trafficking operation where nineteen people were arrested following their exposure to the illicit narcotics ring. Two of those arrested were high-ranking Mexican law enforcement officials who attempted to cover up their drug crimes by ordering the execution of the two D.E.A. agents.

Dr. Alvarez-Macham went on trial in Los Angeles, California but United States District Court Judge stated that prosecutors had no case and acquitted him. On July 9th 1993, Dr. Alvarez-Machain filed a lawsuit against the United States government for more than $20,000,000.00 in damages alleging he suffered electric shock treatments, injections of unknown substances and deprivation of sleep and food while he was in the custody of the U.S. government and it’s attendant agents.

The Alvarez-Machain ease (112 5. Ct. 2188 (1992), ruled on June 15th, 1992, relates only to a court authority stating the Court has jurisdiction to try a criminal defendant even if he was abducted against his will from a foreign country. This is a ruling based only on a court authority and does not reflect any policy of the United States to engage in such activities.

Canada, as well as Mexico, made it very clear to the Bush administration that... “Any attempt by a person acting on behalf of the United States, or from the private sector (bounty hunter) acting on their own, who makes an attempt to ‘kidnap’ any of their citizens, it will be regarded as a criminal act”.

President Bush responded to the pressure and reassured the offended nations by saying “... United States policy is to cooperate with foreign states in achieving law enforcement objectives.” The U.S. government conceded to then Mexican President Salinas that the United States would not conduct, encourage or condone any abduction from Mexico in the future. Further, that the United States acknowledges that ‘cross border’ abductions of citizen nationals from one country to another by bounty hunters is, indeed, an extraditable offense under the terms of the Extradition Treaty and that any said abductions would not be executed by any law enforcement officers. Similar commitments were made to other nations including Canada.

It is important you understand that you simply cannot go into another country and expect to be afforded the same rights of a bail enforcement agent as you are in the United States. It simply will not be tolerated and you will be extradited to the offended country should they request your presence before their courts.

To abduct a person from their homeland has other negated effects as well as decided by the United States Supreme Court:

· Any and all persons involved in the abduction could be subject to criminal prosecution in the offended country if they are apprehended there (do not rely on the ‘officials’ there having approved the abduction, or even assisted as foreign officials have been known to disavow any knowledge of such abductions if their government gets news of their involvement).

· Any and all persons involved in the abduction could be subject to extradition to the offended country should they so request same, and be tried according to the law of the foreign nation, subsequently sent to their prison if convicted (see Kear vs. Hilton, 699 F. 2nd l8l (4th Circuit 1983).

· Any and all persons involved in the abduction of a foreign fugitive from his native land may be liable for damages via the civil laws of the offended nation. The foreign courts could award the one abducted, or his family, a substantial money settlement. It is even possible for the captured person, or his family, to also sue the acting abductors in the courts of the United States.

In some cases, the kidnapping of a defendant from a foreign land could result in all criminal charges being dropped against him or her.

It is strongly advised against anyone making an attempt to remove a fugitive from without the borders of the United States. The taking into custody of a fugitive from abroad is fundamentally a matter for the federal government. A bail enforcement agent can, however, assist the federal government in capturing a fugitive abroad by simply ensuring a UFAP (Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution) is issued before traveling to the foreign country in which his fugitive has sought sanctuary, then pointing out the outlaw to the foreign country’s equivalent of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). Then the foreign officials can arrest your skip and international extradition proceedings can be initiated.

[Saint]

International extradition is a process by which a person found in one country is surrendered to another country for trial or punishment. It is a formal process, regulated by treaty and conducted by the federal government of the United States and the government of the foreign country. It has a legal basis different than that of interstate rendition (frequently referred to as interstate extradition), which is mandated by Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, and regulated chiefly by state law and 18 US. C. 318.

Every request for international extradition must be approved by the Department of Justice and formally presented to the foreign government by the Department of state through diplomatic channels. It is important to remember that only the Department of State can invoke the terms of an extradition treaty. Prosecutors, police officers, and the like, are generally free to communicate with their foreign counterparts for the purpose of giving or receiving information on law enforcement matters but they may not request the arrest of a fugitive for extradition.

After a UFAP is issued and entered with Interpol (International Order of Police) there is an entire schedule of events that are required to happen, in direct and insistent order, before the fugitive will be returned to the requesting country in which he is to be prosecuted. Suffice to say it is a complicated and time-consuming task that has to be followed to the letter or the bad guy will be released and cannot, in most cases, be arrested again in the foreign country for the same thing.

If extradition is not possible, there are often alternative courses of action, which can help bring the fugitive to justice. For example, the OIA (Office of Internal Affairs) can sometimes arrange for the fugitive to be deported from the country of refuge to the United States, or from a third country where extradition is available. If the fugitive is a citizen of the country of refuge, they may even be persuaded to prosecute the outlaw there on charges developed in the United States, as many countries have jurisdiction over the extra-territorial offenses of their citizens.

The most publicized of all Canadian cases involved a Toronto businessman named Sidney L. Jaffe, who was charged in Florida with fraud resulting from improper land sales where hundreds of investors lost approximately two million dollars during the 1970’s. Mr. Jaffe was arrested and subsequently released on $137,000.00 bail posted by a Florida bail-bonding agency. After missing his trial date (he later cited heath problems caused the failure to appear) the bonding company dispatched it's bounty hunters who located and apprehended the defendant while he was jogging (so much for the health problem excuse) near his condominium. The two bounty hunters were dispatched only after all attempts at extradition had failed.

The bounty hunters then drove their capture to the United States entering through Niagara Falls, New York and, uneventfully, on to Florida where Mr. Jaffe was brought to trial, found guilty and received a 35 year sentence for his part in the land fraud venture. The conviction was later overturned by an Appeals Court after Jaffe had served only two years of the original sentence. Florida authorities immediately filed a ‘bail jumping’ charge against Jaffe in the wake of his failure to appear two years earlier. Sidney Jaffe again posted bail, this time in the amount of $150,000.00 and the bail conditions even allowed him to return to Canada after he ‘promised’ he would return for trial.

Shortly after Jaffe was returned for trial by the bounty hunters, Canadian officials launched a vigorous and attention getting protest against what they termed an ‘abduction’ of one of their citizens right off the streets of Toronto in broad daylight. Shortly thereafter, Canada filed warrants for the arrest and extradition of the two bounty hunters, and the United States returned the two men to Canada where they stood trial for, and were convicted on, kidnapping charges. Sidney Jaffe, and his family, filed suit in the amount of twenty million dollars against the bonding company and various officials for damages in violation of his civil rights, abuse of process, malicious prosecution and various other claims. Jaffe and his family were awarded $1,401,570.30.

Sometimes there is an ethical issue at hand superseding any financial gain (or bounty). Take the case of Al Lopez and Frank Gonzales, co-owners of Texas Fugitive Apprehensions out of El Paso, Texas. In 1993 they traveled to Matamoros, Mexico and apprehended a bail jumper named Rogeho Castro Izaguirre, who had absconded on a $4,000 bail posted by a Texas bonding company in the wake of Sr. Izaguirre being charged with unauthorized use of an automobile. Upon apprehension the skip's family offered the bounty hunters a bribe in the amount of $2,000. Lopez and Gonzales declined. The fugitive realized he was doomed and settled in for the ride back to Texas, however, at the international border the prisoner had a change of mind and tried to get out of the ear as they approached the border checkpoint. One of the bounty hunters managed to grasp the skip around the neck but the choking captive was able to yell very loudly in Spanish, “Help me. Help me.” The Mexican police started to approach the car but the driver gunned the engine and roared through to the American side then came to a screeching halt at the American checkpoint.

The American police were very willing to accept the still gasping prisoner and hold him on the original charges of auto theft and bail jumping, but were even happier later when it was learned Izaguirre was wanted for murder in connection with the killing of a former Brownsville, Texas police officer during a robbery attempt at the ex cop’s store. The victim in the robbery killing, David Solis, was killed instantly by being shot twice in the chest and once in the forehead; his store was located only two blocks from the Gateway Bridge crossing the Rio Grande River into Mexico.

Mike Abbell, then head of the international section of the United States Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said, “Any effort to bring a wanted man back from a foreign country should be done through extradition, or through other processes approved by the foreign country involved. A bounty hunter that operates abroad does so at his own risk and if the foreign country brings charges and seeks extradition, we will send the bounty hunter back there. The limits of bounty hunting are the United States borders as far as we are concerned.”

Ask yourself would you consider this particular case a kidnapping? Was the bringing of a fugitive charged with the murder of a former police officer (not to mention a human being) to justice a kidnapping? The obvious answer is yes. Legally, it was wrong morally, well, no need to go into that.

Bottom line: Cross border operations as concerns fugitive retrieval is best left to the federal government. Unless you have the money, the experience, the expertise, the contacts and you don’t give a darn about your life... leave it alone!

[Yak]

Saint....pure "cr*p" is the right answer. There are so many laws and guidelines that we are supposed to follow, it makes it impossible to know what to do.
Bottom line is who you are, who you know, and how you do it. Sidestepping and corruption set the stage for
for a "card blanche" to most everything.

[-----]

OX, stick to DOGHUNTER, arrf arrf, Saint is here in a serious mode, his cage won't rattle. Let him educate us on the details of BEA's.

Pick your targets wisely...

[Saint]

Yak is just agreeing, that's all. He's right... in this stinking, dysfunctional bail industry it is who you know and how you manage your resources.

[-----]

Then I stand .....corrected....man, that was hard to type! Sorry I missed the message. uggg, to much to take in with all this Chapman stuff lately...

[stagetec]

saint thanks for the honest answer.

[-----]

OK, tired of this crap, what word is hocretin that you have twisted? Admin?

[stagetec]

ya that was H_O_N_E_S_T that i typed.

[-----]

H-o-n-e-s-t and H-o-n-e-s-t-y is banned here?

rethinking....

[Yak]

Saint, thanks for deciphering my post. I remember the
Jaffe case, ..unbelievable, he was able to sue and "win'.
I lost a little more faith in the system on that one.
-----....no problem, i see your a stand up guy. I hope
you "don't" leave this forum.
ps: --> not only is " honestly " being transcribed incorrectly,....when i type the "question mark" .......it sometimes becomes a "smily face".

[-----]

What else is jumbled? Call me an idiot, moron or whatever, doesn't phaze me...what else have I missed?

[FormerlyAnon]

Hey, Saint: Thanks! Great job!! Our crew was successful in retreiving a skip/child molester from Mexico. We followed the proper process (as described) & it worked w/out incident or unlawful behavior. See YAK you can get the job done w/out breaking the law, even in Mexico. Others have done it, too. Duane was doing it for ALL the wrong reasons--himself...

[stagetec]

bump