[SubGeniusX]

Good ruling ... it's a start...

[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.

Ping

[dirtboy]

Rudy Giuliani is deeply saddened.

[TommyDale]

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

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Good!

[Blood of Tyrants]

California gets something right for a change.

[pnh102]

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

[ontap]

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.”

[SubGeniusX]

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?

[Shots]

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.

[ellery]

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

[RegulatorCountry]

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.

[ontap]

Well I’ve been at this for eleven hours so I’ll move on and let you guys hash it out. Antirpublicrat thanks for the back and forth it’s been a pleasure same to you ellery.

[djf]

Sounds like a “Bill of Attainder”. I am not sure if the California constitution forbids it or not.

A “Bill of attainder” is any kind of law that is supposed to deprive you of your property without due process. The “due process” part of this is you are not supposed to be subject to forfeiting your property without a court judgment. The legislature is trying to bypass the courts which is not a good thing.