Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court Overturns Car Seizure Ordinance (it's a Start!)
theNewspaper.com ^ | 7/27/2007

Posted on 07/27/2007 7:03:53 AM PDT by SubGeniusX

California Supreme Court Overturns Car Seizure Ordinance The California Supreme Court says cities may no longer seize automobiles from people merely accused of a crime.

In a 4-3 opinion yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled illegal the city of Stockton's program to seize automobiles from motorists not convicted of any crime. Under the city's ordinance, police could impound the vehicle of anyone accused of using it "to solicit an act of prostitution, or to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance." The city could then hold the car for up to a year without hearing, trial or any finding of guilt.

If a hearing was held, the city would take ownership of the property after the hearing officer decided the defendant was likely to be guilty based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, as opposed to a "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The confiscated vehicle would then be sold at auction, raising thousands in revenue for the city, with a cut of the profits being shared with the police agency that brought in the seized car.

This program generated significant legal controversy, spawning a series of contradictory appeals court rulings that disagreed whether the practice was legal (read decision) or violated procedural due process. Yesterday's decision settled the question by finding Stockton's ordinance in conflict with existing state law.

"A conflict exists if the local legislation 'duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication,'" the decision stated, citing precedent.

California law already provides a set of specific regulations limiting car seizure for drug crimes. Unlike Stockton's ordinance, seizure under state law is a penalty for the felony sale and manufacturing of narcotics, not for simple possession. It is further limited as a penalty only for those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime in which the vehicle was similarly proved to "facilitate" the manufacture or sale of the drugs.

"By way of contrast, the city's ordinance allows the harsh penalty of vehicle forfeiture upon proof merely by a preponderance of evidence of a vehicle's use simply 'to attempt to acquire' any amount of any controlled substance (for instance, less than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a low-grade misdemeanor warranting only a $100 fine and no jail time and not subject to vehicle forfeiture under the UCSA)."

Another provision of California law specifically prohibits a local jurisdiction from inserting itself in matters settled by the state legislature.

"Thus, under section 21, local regulation of any 'matter' covered by this state's Vehicle Code is prohibited unless the legislature has expressly allowed local regulation in that field," the ruling stated.

The same legal principle was used by the Minnesota Supreme Court in striking down a local ordinance that purported to authorize red light camera ticketing (read decision). The Ohio and Iowa Supreme Courts face this question as well as pending cases require a decision on whether local photo enforcement ordinances violate state law.

The California decision will not only shut down dozens of car confiscation programs operating throughout the state, but the precedent will also spell trouble for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority which set up automated stop sign cameras earlier this month on canyon roads in Los Angeles. The obscure governmental agency also intends to set up speed camera ticketing, which is prohibited by state law (view ordinance).

The full text of the California Supreme Court ruling is available in a 68k PDF file at the source link below.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; dueprocess; fifthamendment; govwatch; hijackedthread; leo; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
Good ruling ... it's a start...
1 posted on 07/27/2007 7:03:55 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
California Supreme Court Overturns Car Seizure Ordinance The California Supreme Court says cities may no longer seize automobiles from people merely accused of a crime.

Ping

2 posted on 07/27/2007 7:05:07 AM PDT by SubGeniusX ($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

Rudy Giuliani is deeply saddened.


3 posted on 07/27/2007 7:05:07 AM PDT by dirtboy (Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

Are they now going to reimburse people for the loss of their automobiles?


4 posted on 07/27/2007 7:05:32 AM PDT by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

Good!


5 posted on 07/27/2007 7:06:06 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG (Apparently my former party considers me an "ugly nativist".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

California gets something right for a change.


6 posted on 07/27/2007 7:08:09 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

No, that would defeat the law’s original purpose as a source of income.


7 posted on 07/27/2007 7:09:31 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

What about seizing vehicles of people driving without a license, an expired license, no insurance, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc?


8 posted on 07/27/2007 7:12:15 AM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

What I find a bit scary is that 3 Justices voted the other way!


9 posted on 07/27/2007 7:15:21 AM PDT by basil (Support the Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Would that be a typical illegal alien
that the government refuses to go after in America?


10 posted on 07/27/2007 7:18:03 AM PDT by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
Would that be a typical illegal alien
that the government refuses to go after in America?

Probably. Of course, a legal citizen with no driver's license, no insurance, no registration, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol would be subject to a much harsher penalty than an illegal.

11 posted on 07/27/2007 7:23:10 AM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pnh102; Issaquahking
why is it that some people feel the need to Hijack almost EVERY dang thread ... to discuss the Illegal Immigration Issue ... THIS decision and the original statutes/policies HAD NOTHING to do with illegal immigration...

/obsessive much?

12 posted on 07/27/2007 7:26:35 AM PDT by SubGeniusX ($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: basil

“What I find a bit scary is that 3 Justices voted the other way!”

.....hey, it’s California......that such a good ruling could come from the LEFT coast at all is amazing.....


13 posted on 07/27/2007 7:26:44 AM PDT by Taiku
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

The seizure law was originally meant for drug dealers when the drug were seized in the car. I have no problem with that. Trying to expand it into other areas is just plain wrong. I live in Mesquite Texas and was astounded when a Mesquite Police car passed in front of me, it was a Lincoln Escalade.
When I caught up with it it had a sign on the back window that read. “This is a drug dealers car, he’s in jail and we’re driving his car.”


14 posted on 07/27/2007 7:28:41 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In a 4-3 opinion yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled illegal the city of Stockton's program to seize automobiles from motorists not convicted of any crime. Under the city's ordinance, police could impound the vehicle of anyone accused of using it "to solicit an act of prostitution, or to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance."

wondering your thoughts on this?

15 posted on 07/27/2007 7:31:42 AM PDT by SubGeniusX ($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The seizure law was originally meant for drug dealers when the drug were seized in the car. I have no problem with that.

I do. No conviction, no loss of property. It's the constitutional concept that matters, not the particular crime.

16 posted on 07/27/2007 7:32:29 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ontap

one of the major issues I have here is the “civil seizure” aspect and the lack of due process... even if it’s a dealer w/o a conviction they should not seize the property for the Govts. profit ...


17 posted on 07/27/2007 7:34:33 AM PDT by SubGeniusX ($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Maybe a Lincoln Navigator or a Cadilac Escalade or, he could of got it one piece at a time, and didn’t cost him a dime.


18 posted on 07/27/2007 7:35:41 AM PDT by eastforker (.308 SOCOM 16, hottest brand going.2350 FPS muzzle..M.. velocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

you said it better than i did ...

unfortunately some folks here don’t think the Constitution applies to certain “undesirables”


some scary opinions from so called “conservatives” in this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872038/posts


19 posted on 07/27/2007 7:38:03 AM PDT by SubGeniusX ($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

It is a controversial issue I agree and the point is well taken,but it has been around for years now I assume the ACLU types have given it a close eye and decided it would pass a challenge. Anything they can do to make life miserable for a drug dealer is good. I do however admit that it could and probably has been used inappropriately, sadly this is not unique to this law.


20 posted on 07/27/2007 7:45:29 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

LOLI saw my error almost simultaniously as I hit the send button.


21 posted on 07/27/2007 7:46:50 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Seizure laws corrupt law enforcement everywhere and always and are a PROFOUNDLY bad idea. Cops should get their pay check and that’s all. Allowing them to profit in ANY other way (even something as ‘simple’ as driving a nice car) is asking for tyranny and abuse. And if you ask for it you will certainly get it.


22 posted on 07/27/2007 7:55:18 AM PDT by vigilo (Everything I needed to know about George Bush and the Republican Party I learned from CFR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vigilo

Like I said it’s controversial. Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.


23 posted on 07/27/2007 8:00:17 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ontap
but it has been around for years now I assume the ACLU types have given it a close eye and decided it would pass a challenge

Forfeiture has been contested for years, but unfortunately was ultimately supported by the Supreme Court. The reasoning is that it is a civil case against the property itself, and thus your regular rights don't apply. I do however admit that it could and probably has been used inappropriately

The number of abuses are astounding, in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions by now. The abuse is driven by the fact that most forfeited assets get to be used by the police and prosecutors (such as a personal BMW 750 to drive around in). Are you willing to let that continue so we can put an almost unnoticeable dent in the profits of the drug dealers? To them, seizure is an accounted cost of doing business, but to the rest of America it is devastating.

24 posted on 07/27/2007 8:07:54 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX; Abram; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...
"The California Supreme Court says cities may no longer seize automobiles from people merely accused of a crime."





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
25 posted on 07/27/2007 8:12:54 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Well! Most of the seizures are sold at auction. Like I said it’s controversial. Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.


26 posted on 07/27/2007 8:13:08 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
Under the city's ordinance, police could impound the vehicle of anyone accused of using it "to solicit an act of prostitution, or to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance."

Prostitution too??

What if you solicit for a freebie? Is that 'prostitution'?

27 posted on 07/27/2007 8:13:44 AM PDT by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.

A criminal doesn't care. He'll just walk away from his losses. It's a normal part of doing business.

But speaking of drugs, remember how marijuana is legal in CA for medicinal purposes? The feds are confiscating the property of legal distribution centers in order to shut them down now. They've recently told landlords of such centers that their property will be confiscated if they keep renting to smaller state-approved centers. Talk about a loss of state sovereignty.

I remember a case where a charter pilot took a regular-looking passenger on a business trip as usual. When he landed the feds took the passenger's briefcase which contained a lot of cash. They also took the pilot's Lear Jet. The drug guy just disappeared, writing off the loss. After years in court the pilot ended up having to buy his plane back at auction. Remember, you're up against the full force of the state or federal government (or both) to get your stuff back, and they'll fight tooth and nail, appealing all the way up, bankrupting you with bonds and legal fees if they have to in order to keep your stuff.

28 posted on 07/27/2007 8:22:26 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

This was never anything but a ruse to allow the sale of Marijuana . These so called medicinal uses were rife with illegal sales. Whether you agree with it or not marijuana sales are illegal. These arrests are perfectly legal. While the case you stated in it’s content are deplorable one assumes the guy had access to counsel. I won’t attempt to defend all actions of the Federal government the Ruby Ridge thing really was a ridiculous misuse of power so I’m Leary of the misuse of power, But sometimes one must walk right up to the line, this makes it risky and easy to go over it.


29 posted on 07/27/2007 8:44:27 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.

Is it illegal to have a suitcase? Why would the suitcase even be taken to begin with? Take the drugs, leave the suitcase, then it isn’t even an issue. But that’s the problem isn’t it? The cops want stuff, they want YOUR stuff if they can get it. Seizure laws turn the cops into greedy little tyrants.


30 posted on 07/27/2007 8:55:09 AM PDT by vigilo (Everything I needed to know about George Bush and the Republican Party I learned from CFR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
The Ohio and Iowa Supreme Courts face this question as well as pending cases require a decision on whether local photo enforcement ordinances violate state law.

The author who wrote that article got it slightly wrong. What they are questioning is/are the laws a violation of ones constitutional rights i.e. you/they have a right to face their accuser which is a camera and is located on the corner of x&y not in the courtroom where he should be.

31 posted on 07/27/2007 9:05:53 AM PDT by Shots (If you see Known Illegal Immigrants it is your civic duty to report them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vigilo

You see the argument gets to be rather ridiculous. baggies are legal to should these also be returned. And when you raid his house , bunson burners ,scales, and chemicals etc. should be returned. So you swoop in seize the finished product and leave the lab intact. A car used to deliver drugs is part of the drug dealers assets and are confiscated same as his other drug producing and dilivery paraphernalia.


32 posted on 07/27/2007 9:07:38 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

This is a duplicate of the Giuliani program in NYC. It’s about time courts started knocking down this abomination.


33 posted on 07/27/2007 9:18:27 AM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.

If the owner of said suitcase is not convicted of a crime, of course the state must return it -- and in a timely fashion, too.

34 posted on 07/27/2007 9:27:37 AM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

Striking a blow against civil asset forfeiture laws, where ever they exist, is a good thing. Now, if they could just go after the corrupt law enforcement along I-10, selecting out-of-state drivers with expensive vehicles and impounding them, knowing full well that it’s an extreme hardship to challenge it in court when you live hundreds of miles away ... it’s all such a tremendous invitation to corruption. It needs to end, no matter what the supposed benefits of reducing other sorts of criminal activity are supposed to be. Law enforcement needs to be held to a high standard of legal behavior, otherwise there can be no trust in the law.


35 posted on 07/27/2007 10:30:48 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
It looks like the citizens of California want to limit asset forfeitures to felony convictions, not misdemeanors.

Fine by me -- that's their choice.

36 posted on 07/27/2007 10:46:57 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ontap
This was never anything but a ruse to allow the sale of Marijuana .

Whatever it is doesn't matter. It's the principle.

Whether you agree with it or not marijuana sales are illegal. These arrests are perfectly legal.

Not if you agree with the Constitution's design for state sovereignty and limited federal powers. I don't like marijuana either, but its legality is a state issue when the plants don't cross state lines.

While the case you stated in it’s content are deplorable one assumes the guy had access to counsel.

Your access to counsel doesn't matter, as the case isn't against you. Nowhere do your constitutional rights come into this scenario. They can take your stuff on a vague feeling of illegality, and it is a very expensive, uphill battle for you as a third party to get it back. You have to post bond, you have to pay legal fees commensurate with fighting against the resources of a greedy government, and hope the government doesn't take that too. That is if they haven't already confiscated all of your assets, depriving you of the resources to fight. That happened to a doctor once who didn't know to fill out the paperwork when transferring money from one of his accounts to another -- everything was seized, and his friends who loaned him the money to fight found themselves in trouble too.

I remember one instance of a landscaper who used to regularly fly to a nearby state with cash to buy his supplies. He fit a profile, so IIRC around $8,000 was just taken from him at the airport. What do you do when the fight to get it back will easily cost you over $10,000, non-reimbursable?

But sometimes one must walk right up to the line

They ran past the line a long time ago. I don't think they even noticed it.

37 posted on 07/27/2007 11:08:06 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
What about seizing vehicles of people driving without a license, an expired license, no insurance, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc?

Your comment was...

why is it that some people feel the need to Hijack almost EVERY dang thread ... to discuss the Illegal Immigration Issue ... THIS decision and the original statutes/policies HAD NOTHING to do with illegal immigration...?

Because illegals Are the majority of crime out here in the west! Maybe in New york you may not have a problem with illegals, but here in the west, they are crushing the health care system, the educational system, and the legal system. Perhaps you were not aware of the fact that illegals have killed over 45,000 Americans since 9/11? Meanwhile, in the war on terror, where our troops lives are in danger everyday, on a mission that we must win, we've lost over 3600.

/obsessive much?

While you may think it's obsessive, when I can pick up the weekly newspaper, the police blotter is filled with Hispanic names committing crimes...Even the left gets it, was wondering if you might be aware of how serious the border problems are? Must be different out east.
38 posted on 07/27/2007 11:14:46 AM PDT by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

This was never anything but a ruse to allow the sale of Marijuana .

Whatever it is doesn’t matter. It’s the principle.

There is no principal in passing a law for an express purpose when the intent is something else.

The drug trade long ago became more than a state problems. Most of these laws we are speaking of were brought about at the behest of state AGs.

While the case you stated in it’s content are deplorable one assumes the guy had access to counsel.

I would not begin to justify this kind of abuse , sadly there are Mike Nifongs among us. The bastard that did this should be prosecuted.


39 posted on 07/27/2007 11:19:32 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ellery

Well! I guess there are perfectly innocent reasons far having a suitcase full of cocaine, but I be damn if I can think of one.


40 posted on 07/27/2007 11:21:30 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Here’s an all-too-common one: a corrupt official coveted your belongings, so s/he planted cocaine.

This is why the Founders set up a nation of laws, not of men. It’s simple: let those who are accused of a crime exercise their due-process rights, and have their day in court.


41 posted on 07/27/2007 11:40:40 AM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ellery

any law can be corrupted! We still have to enforce them. Scenarios such as this will always be with us.


42 posted on 07/27/2007 11:47:47 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ontap
any law can be corrupted! We still have to enforce them.

You're the one arguing against enforcing the very foundation of our legal system. According to your arguments, government agents have the power to violate the Constitution. I assert that all agents of the government are bound by the Constitution -- i.e., they cannot deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process.

43 posted on 07/27/2007 12:06:44 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
ok... you get a lot of crime from illegals out west ... I get it trust me... we all get it ...

but WTF did that have to do with THIS THREAD AND TOPIC!!!

NOTHING!!!

This thread did not deal with immigration... this ruling did not deal with unregistered motor vehicles... This had to do with property seizure for minor misdemeanors ... and the lack of Due Process ...

aren’t there enough threads dealing with the immigration issue on this board, that it can be throughly discussed ...

why do you and others feel the need to hijack threads that have nothing to do with the issue ...

there are plenty of other legitimate “OHHSSS NOZE TEH ILEGAAALLLZZZ!!!” threads out there ...

44 posted on 07/27/2007 12:09:21 PM PDT by SubGeniusX ($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: ellery

I’ve made no such statement. These laws were passed and have been challenge and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Florida Case Law Update

99-06: Seizure of a vehicle for forfeiture

Case: Florida v. White, U.S. Supreme Court

Date: May 17, 1999

FACTS: In Case Law Update 98-03, it was reported that the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a seizure warrant is necessary to seize a vehicle for forfeiture. That included a vehicle parked in a public area. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

RULING: The United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling by our state court. They held that as long as the vehicle is located in a public place, a warrantless seizure of the vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment. NOTE: The vehicle in this case was located in the parking lot of the business where the owner worked. If the vehicle is on private property, consult with your legal advisor for the proper method of seizing it. Also, the case was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. They may decide to require a warrant anyway based on other constitutional considerations (such as due process). If that occurs, another case law update will be published to let you know.

For Further Information Contact:


46 posted on 07/27/2007 12:45:52 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ontap
There is no principal in passing a law for an express purpose when the intent is something else.

The principle is state sovereignty. Whatever the ruse, it is a state issue to resolve.

I would not begin to justify this kind of abuse , sadly there are Mike Nifongs among us.

When it comes to seizure the Nifongs are not a tiny minority. This isn't one rape case, it's hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of victims.

It is policy. Where outraged citizens finally got state governments to do something, the police simply went around them. New Mexico clamped down, requiring conviction, a reasonable amount seized, and nothing goes to the police (eliminating their greed motive). No problem, the police started letting the feds "adopt" all their forfeiture cases, in return for 80% back. It took years of litigation and an appeals court ruling to finally force the police to comply with the law.

Having to go to court to force police to comply with a law that protects citizens -- that's what asset forfeiture has brought us to. Of course, those officers who broke the law at the expense of citizens will probably not be prosecuted. They should be convicted, and then their assets should be seized, equal to the value of what they illegally seized from the citizens.

This isn't an aberration or a rare miscarriage of justice. It is endemic as seizures tempted the greed of every law enforcement officer, office, department and agency in the country. And that temptation bore fruit with a huge number of them -- almost half of local authorities are now dependent on forfeiture money for their operations. Whatever the benefits of this program, they are minuscule compared to not only the damage done to law-abiding citizens, but to the Constitution.

There is, of course, another aspect: Police will go after lucrative targets instead of the ones they should be catching. Police used to pose as buyers in order to nail the dealers in possession of a lot of drugs. Not so much anymore. Now they pose as dealers so they can nail buyers and thus seize their money. You see, five kilos of coke in the possession of a dealer isn't really worth anything to the police, but the guy who was trying to buy a small baggie might have several thousand dollars on him.

47 posted on 07/27/2007 12:56:33 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

There is no principal in passing a law for an express purpose when the intent is something else.

The principle is state sovereignty. Whatever the ruse, it is a state issue to resolve.

If you truly believe this claptrap I have no logical argument.Your reasoning is absurd.We are ruled by the Constitution of the United States and if a state passes a law that does not comply it is not the states sole right to correct it , it is the Government of the United states responsibility to challenge it.


48 posted on 07/27/2007 1:13:24 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ontap
We are ruled by the Constitution of the United States and if a state passes a law that does not comply

How does the in-state selling of cannabis not comply with the Constitution? Its illegality is a relatively recent thing.

At issue here is how the federal government managed to assume the power to override state law on this internal state issue. Hint: It came from overextending the commerce clause into absurdity.

49 posted on 07/27/2007 1:23:03 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I don’t want to get into the legalization of cannabis nor do I want to defend the DEA or ATF and I certainly don’t believe they don’t cross the line. But illegal drugs are a scourge on this country and if we have a tool and it’s been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme court then we need to use it. After all the constitution gives the court that power. I might add that this is the court we have been working so hard to get, that doesn’t necessarily guarantee we’ll get all the rulings we like.


50 posted on 07/27/2007 1:34:02 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson