Principals who have been subjected to illegal or excessive arrest procedures by a bondsman have secured only minimal redress in State judicial forums upon initiating tort actions founded upon false imprisonment, trespass, and assault and battery. In trying to secure redress under section 1983, the point of contention is the establishment of the nexus between the private bondsman and the state so as to transform the private conduct of the bondsman into action of the state. Contradictory judicial pronouncements in this area must be reconciled in relation to recent Supreme Court 'state action' decisions. The difficuly of this task is compounded by the Supreme Court's inability to formulate a clear and coherent state action doctrine. Analysis of contemporary state action doctrines reveals that the bondsman arguably possesses a symbiotic relationship with the sovereign, performs a public function, and is encouraged, authorized, and even compelled to use police powers. Such analysis demonstrates the propriety of those decisions where conduct of the surety has been held to constitute state action. The implementation by the sovereign of a bail system in which the bondsman serves as the cornerstone and acquisition of the constitutionally protected right to bail should not require the principal to waive other constitutional protections. Appended are 1980 pretrial release data for the Eastern Division of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.