Posted on 04/01/2015 6:35:43 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Can law enforcement seize an innocent person's property? If you think the answer is no, just ask David Laase. In May 2006, he received an unexpected phone call at 1 a.m. from his wife. She had been arrested for DUI, later pleaded guilty and paid all court-imposed fines. However, that punishment was not enough under the state's civil forfeiture laws. Isanti County sheriffs seized the $35,000 Chevrolet Tahoe she was driving at the time of the stop and refused to return it to Laase, even though he jointly owned the vehicle and had done nothing wrong. Laase became a victim of civil forfeiture. Under civil forfeiture, law enforcement can seize and keep people's cash and vehicles without convicting or even charging an owner with a crime. In 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court gutted protections for spouses who co-own vehicles in the infamous case, Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe. Not only can the police seize your property, but Minnesota law also prohibits people who jointly own property with someone accused of a crime from going to court to try to get their property back. As an innocent owner wanting to retrieve his vehicle, David started the daunting and expensive process of filing a civil action against his property. Yes, he had to sue his own vehicle under Minnesota's forfeiture law; that is why the Tahoe is named as the defendant in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
There shouldn’t even BE asset forfeiture. How the heck that ever passed Constitutional challenge is beyond me!
Not sure how this would play out under the law, but might be a good reason to lease vs. buy.
How does this affect a bank with a loan on the vehicle?
Asset forfeiture makes perfect sense as part of the sentence imposed after conviction.
Which isn’t the issue here, of course.
It was done to fatten the coffers on drug busts. A bust on a major drug operation can yield a gold mine for the government.
“.. there shouldn’t even BE asset forfeiture”.
I totally agree. I never understood it and didn’t like it when they used it in drug cases either. (Perhaps this is how it got its start?). It is just another way the government takes what they want. IMHO.
Bank owns the car, not you. It’s a good reason to finance although it’s better to avoid driving drunk .
You’d be on the hook to continue paying the lease. Not returning the vehicle at the end of the lease puts you on the hook to reimburse the dealer for the loss.
Was this her first DUI? Did the husband know she was likely gong to drink and drive? He’s not that innocent?
These two will likely lose the Tahoe. Not to the authorities, but to the finance company. The bank receives certified mail advising them their collateral was seized while it was involved in a crime. The lien holder will foreclose/repossess the vehicle and release it to the owners only AFTER they pay the loan in fill. Which ain’t likely to happen.
I’m all for it for anyone in the country illegally.
When an illegal is caught send them home with just the clothes on their backs.
Watch as illegals self deport trying to keep what they got.
More than likely, if you lost the vehicle due to forfeiture, you would also OWE the bank if you had an unpaid loan against it. You would still owe the bank for their money, the state would have the vehicle and you would be SCREWED. Moral of the story: Stay out of trouble and don't drive drunk.
It’d be interesting to see the civil case.
Since they did nothing illegal and the vehicle is recoverable.
Prosecutors “taking” could not extinguish the banks lien.
Prosecutors probably seek to sell them, pay off lien and keep difference, If ANY?
Prosecutors “taking” could not extinguish the banks lien.
_________________________________________
Oh yes it could. In my experience as a banker, authorities give the lienholder one chance to redeem and recover the vehicle. Any additional impoundments after that means no way the vehicle goes back to the owner or the finance company.
Based on that, the bank’s policy is to recover the vehicle from impound, made demand on the note, and if not paid in full, we sell it at auction and seek a deficiency judgment for the balance owed after the sale.
Drive cheap vehicles cops wouldn’t want. Live in cheap places cops don’t care to steal from you. Never carry cash.
You can bank Henry Hyde and Bush the Elder for that monstrosity.
L
I stand corrected then!
Being a banker, you should know!
Thanks.
Banks take it on the chin just like regular people when it comes to the State and their overriding control of your assets.
We may have a first lien on your home going back 15 years. However if the property taxes are not paid - the local tax agency can foreclose wiping out the first lien.
Point is - ANY secured lien or contract can be written off and ignored by local/state/federal agencies as they ALWAYS get their $$$ first.
Creeping fascism.
In New Mexico, civil forfeiture was sport, so much so you’d get vehicles snagged for driving too fast. (Gov. Martinez recently signed a law forbidding the practice.)
My lawyer, as part of estate planning, had moved most of my assets into a Nevada trust, which then owned a Delaware company, which then owned NM LLCs.
My cars are owned by my employer, which, I happen to own, but good luck figuring that out.
Anyway, that convoluted process is to prevent this kind of crap (among estate planning reasons).
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.