Minnesota Supreme Court forfeiture case could affect 'policing for profit'

Pioneer Press ^ | 5-12-14 | Hal Davis

[bamahead]

Under the change, the government can take property only if it wins a criminal conviction. The bill, which goes into effect Aug. 1, also shifts the burden of proof to the government.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[jiggyboy]

It’s not clear at all to me why he was pulled over. The only suggestion in the article that something was wrong was the mention of the owner not having a driver’s license. But if that’s why this guy was pulled over, it follows that the cop ran the plate while the guy was still driving along. That’s a fishing expedition, whether he did it “by hand” or an automatic license plate reader did the work and rang a bell.

As to whether it’s “probable” that the guy behind the wheel is the owner, that’s another matter — but one for after the stop not before IMO.

[Gene Eric]

>> Checking the license plate, Peterson learned there was no driver’s license listed for the car’s owner

Don’t agree that’s adequate cause unless the vehicle was reported stolen.

Imagine all the licensed drivers driving their own vehicles down the freeway along with all their various illegal paraphernalia that go... unmanaged.

[Abundy]

the disconnect is that there is no way the officer can know who is driving the vehicle, therefore the fact that the owner does not have a driver's license is not probable cause for a stop...vehicle not listed as stolen, therefore either it was just stolen, or someone else driving or owner driving...how do you know? absent that knowledge there is not pc

the other issue is the 'search' of the database simply because a driver is operating the vehicle in a safe manner: both hands on wheel as taught in driver's training and looking at the road not what's on the side of the road (the cop)

IOW, this officer took an official action by searching the database for no legitimate reason other than operating the vehicle as taught in driver's ed training

is that that world you want to live in?

[Manly Warrior]

I didn’t ignore it. It is the operative issue. Why do LEOs run plates when they have no reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause? That is the issue.

Can a Cop run my plates because I have an NRA or faith based sticker on it? Because I part my hair down the middle and men who so do use drugs? Because only hillbillies ( who all have illegal guns and untaxed moonshine) drive older PUs?
Because I hold the steering wheel with both hands and look ahead when I pass a cop?

Soon, technology will be in place to record plates and run them automatically as you pass cameras along the road. Then, if the plate has no licensed driver attached, a cop will visit the car registration address? Huh? Big leap of logic there, but the courts will allow it “ for public safety and the children etc”...

The death of liberty by a thousand tiny cuts.

[trisham]

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone
who have the courage to defend it."

~Pericles

Please support Free Republic
click the pic

[MortMan]

Stopping a car to see if the driver is licensed isn't "assuming they're criminals".

I have a problem with the police doing the search of their database in order to come up with their initial reason for stopping the car. The police could not cite an observed behavior that was probable cause to investigate the driver, to my understanding. Therefore, a fishing trip into the database gave them an excuse.

Essentially, they did a search to justify doing a search.

[SunTzuWu]

A license plate check showed that the registered owner had no drivers license. It's reasonable to assume that the owner of the car is the driver.

[Still Thinking]

Are you considering the act of pulling you over and asking to see your papers "detaining"?

Yes. Arrest no; detaining, yes.

What's the legal basis for the random DUI checkpoints some places (like Los Angeles) do?

As far as I can tell, there isn't one. SCOTUS disagrees with me, although I'm sure that doesn't cause them too many sleepless nights.

[Still Thinking]

If you’re assuming for the purpose of shooting the breeze, yet it is. If you’re assuming for the purposes of evaluating PC, then I’m going to say, no it’s not.