C.R.S. § 16-19-119 If the person so held is admitted to bail as provided for in section C.R.S. § 16-19-117 and fails to appear and surrender themselves according to the conditions of his/her bond, the judge of the district court, by proper order, shall declare the bond forfeited and order his/her immediate arrest without warrant (bench warrant - paperless warrant) if s/he is within this state. Recovery may be had on such bond in the name of the people of the state of Colorado as in the case of other bonds or undertakings given by a defendant in criminal proceedings.

C.R.S. § 16-19-109 The warrant shall authorize the peace officer or other person to whom directed to arrest the accused at any time and any place where s/he may be found within the state and to command the aid of all peace officers in the execution of the warrant and to deliver the accused, subject to the provisions of this article, to the duly authorized agent of the demanding state.

C.R.S. § 16-19-110 Every peace officer or other person empowered to make the arrest shall have authority, in arresting the accused, to command assistance therein as peace officers have by law in the execution of any criminal process directed to them, with the penalties against those who refuse their assistance.

Case Law in support

People v. Loomis, 60 Colo. 202, 152 P.2dd 143 (1915) "An accused person released on bail, is, in contemplation of law, in the custody of their sureties."

U.S. Supreme Court 1873, Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366.

 In 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court Case "Taylor vs. Taintor" gave bail enforcement agents nearly limitless power and authority when hunting down a subject. This means that a bounty hunter may enter their premise if needed to capture their wanted fugitive, whether it be on behalf of a financial institution, company or government authority.

When bail is given, the principal (defendant - accused) is regarded as delivered to the care, custody, and control of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or through an agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter into his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the re-arrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner.

Taylor v. Taintor is a Judicial Dictum – an opinion offered by a court, on a question or point that is directly involved in the case, but which is not essential to the court’s decision. It was consented by 3 justices while 4 dissented. This Dictum to this date is sound doctrine and used by many states that have approved it or have it included into their codified set of laws of a sovereignty of each state of the union.

In Colorado according to Oram v. People, 255 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2011) The supreme court held that Taylor v. Taintor is widely accepted and even considered sound doctrine by most states and some have even adopted Taylor v. Taintor into their respective states laws, but the Colorado Supreme Court held in that ruling in Oram v. People, "...that they do not recognize the common law bail bonding agent's privilege as set forth in Taylor v. Taintor."