If the Marshall Service does not enforce contempt, it is possible for the courts to appoint others to enforce for them if they are willing to do so. It would be unprecedented, but well within the bounds of what the law states
The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”
[…]
Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.
[…]
Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.
No - bounty hunters are specifically for people who skip on their bail, and are hired by private companies. They do not have the judicial authorization to use force. There is no “dead or alive” because of a bounty can’t be brought in, the bail bondsman loses money.
A deputized marshall has the legal protection of the state to use force to apprehend the warranted. Its rarely used because it’s a powerful tool.
If the Marshall Service does not enforce contempt, it is possible for the courts to appoint others to enforce for them if they are willing to do so. It would be unprecedented, but well within the bounds of what the law states
[…]
[…]
https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/
So…DOG, the bounty hunter? That would actually be kinda cool.
No - bounty hunters are specifically for people who skip on their bail, and are hired by private companies. They do not have the judicial authorization to use force. There is no “dead or alive” because of a bounty can’t be brought in, the bail bondsman loses money.
A deputized marshall has the legal protection of the state to use force to apprehend the warranted. Its rarely used because it’s a powerful tool.