Guilliani Confiscating Cars

Unless polygraph testing has been greatly improved in the five years since I last surveyed the scientific literature on it...I would not put an irrevocable deal of weight on it. Witness the many goofs of the CIA placing too much reliance on these tests.

Having the burden of proof rest with the government is the linchpin of "due process of law" in the United States. It is an essential liberty. It is tampered with only at the peril of liberty.

Confiscation of property is historically a penalty for truly heinous crimes of enormous import not for ordinary felonies or even indulging in a life of crime. Crimes such as treason.

Ever been accused of an offense without any basis? I have. An officer in the days before roadside breath tests pulled me over for suspicion of DUI. The nearest breathalyzer was in the county seat 20 miles away. He had my car towed. I passed the test. He had a problem. He needed a charge to justify the tow. He charged me with "illegal crossing of the center line." He stopped me on the basis of a phone call mentioning a red Ford. I was driving a red Ford. When he first saw me I was pulling off the road to visit some bushes. Nowhere near the center line.

My approach to most things legal is putting it into the scales of justice? Does it balance? Is it evenhanded? Is it fair?

For example, the posturing of district attorneys when attempting to charge juveniles as an adult. I have but one problem with this. If an individual is to assume adult responsibilities for their actions then it follows that they should also assume adult rights and privileges. If DA's want to charge 14 year olds as adults, I have no problem if the DA's are also lobbying to lower the age of majority to 14.

If a person's reasoning on these issues is not evenhanded or is not applied to all aspects then it is suspect reasoning and should be reevaluated.
 
Polygraph tests are NOT admissible in ANY court in the U.S.

If you want to punish drunk drivers, take them off the streets, not their cars - taking cars is just too easy to screw up in so many ways (as many have posted), both intentional and unintentional.
 
Oboy this is a hairy one.
do I like confiscation laws. Not just no HELL NO. I could agree with them if there was a guilty verdict before the property was confiscated, and it didn't matter what or who owned the property.
The problem, when do you confiscate the property. I resently arrested a man on what will be his third 1st offense DWI (its OWI here in Iowa)The reason it will be his first Offense is that he and his SOB lawyer have postponed the trial on the first arrest over a year.
He has never been found guilty of OWI, and is out driving now even though his license is revoked, his lawyer is good at wearing down the States lawyers to get a lesser charge. When this guy kills someone then the Confiscation crowd has more ammo.
I'd love to take this guy's car but I have no way to do it. He'll likely kill someone or himself and then the sheeple will be upset that The COPs aren't doing their job.
The Judicial System is Broke, so is the corrections system.
Confiscation is NOT the answer. But how do we insure that the guilty are gotten off the street? And do it in a Constitutional maner.
 
Spartacus and others:

A well-respected economist/academic (can't think of his name right now) has correctly described the problem with this War on Drugs. He says that the federal (and to some extent, state) LE agencies have formed something of an "unholy union" with the drug lords & drug runners. If they were to really put the illegal drug trade out of business, they themselves would be out of a job. Like all gov't agencies, they are constantly trying to justify their existence to get the same or an increased budget for more toys & jobs for their friends (and themselves). They definitely have an axe to grind in keeping the flow of drugs going. Hence the mantra "It's like putting your finger in a dike; there's no way to really stop the drugs, no matter what we do; all we can do is slow it down a little". That may be partially true, but the heads of agencies (as well as the rank and file) have a strong interest in not stopping all the drugs. Thus, the war on drugs is doomed to be a failure. If we took half of all the federal money currently spent on the war on drugs, and after putting the other half back into the general budget (for other areas), take the first half and use 2/3 of it for educational campaigns re drugs, and leave only the other 1/3 (of the half) to enforcement, we would have less drug abuse in the U.S. and billions to spend on other areas (or for tax cuts!).

OK, John, regarding the prudence of the forfeiture laws, please refer to my prior post. Yes, drunk driving is an irresponsible act that should be punished harshly. If you live in a state that feels drunk driving is too big of a problem, then your state should increase the penalties (make it the death sentence, or life without parole even, if it takes that to curb the problem. Fine people a billion dollars if you want). But don't try to subvert the Const. by claiming that it is not punishment. It is. And it's double jeopardy if you've already been punished. You are correct that the major flaw is in the procedure. The burden of proof (BOP) for the DD conviction is (as it should be) "beyond a reasonable doubt", but for forfeiture, a much lower BOP applies: "by a preponderance of the evidence", which means more likely than not, which is of course 51% chance that the person was driving drunk. The real insidious part of this law, as someone pointed out (which has been upheld by the Supremes, BTW!) is that if the property (car) is co-owned by the offender and another (spouse for example), the state can take the entire value of the car and not have to give the spouse any money! That is absurdly violative of due process and equal protection. Women especially should be mad about that, because it essentially reverts back 100 years when women couldn't own property in their own name. It's saying that "because your husband drove drunk, we're taking your property [your half of the car] - what's the wife's is the husband's anyway". This is state-sponsored theft. (Other lawyers or people who have studied this issue: If I have misunderstood the opinion, then please correct me; I'm recalling from several years ago - a case from Michigan, I believe).

[This message has been edited by Exiled And Addicted (edited February 23, 1999).]
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of the RICO confiscation rationale was based on the notion that the property was purchased with the proceeds of ill gotten gains, i.e. drug money, and that kinda sorta made it all right to confiscate it. I'm having trouble making the leap here on confiscating private property at all, let alone without due process. I guess I could see it in the case of the chronic/repeat offender who continues to drive after he/she has lost their liciense, etc., but there's no way in my mind that this isn't fascism in action. While I can hardly defend drunk drivers, this kind of creeping crud erosion of rights cannot be permitted. Ray is right, the system is broken, and more 'laws' ain't gonna fix it. Rule #3 in the Cowboy's Code of Convention Wisdom says "when you fnd yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging". M2

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited February 23, 1999).]
 
Mike-
My understanding of confiscation laws are that they date back to pirating laws whereby shipments might be seized if the source could not be documented by the owner. Thus, I understoof the "War on Drugs" confiscations as you do.

Seems confiscation has now been expanded to any property used in a crime: cash, your car, your home. This is not unique to the Big Apple....certain jurisdictions will confiscate your car if you solicit a hooker for a...well you get the point.

The question is, What's Next? Take my home because I had a domestic disagreement with my lady? Far fetched today, but then so was auto confiscation for simple solicitation 20 years ago.
Rich
 
I'm not just hung up on rights, I am also for individual responsibility. I would have no problem with taking a drunk driver convicted by a jury of his sovereign peers, tying him with his butt shining over a sawhorse, and proceeding to turn his butt into hamburger with a bamboo shinai. In fact, I would favor public flogging for virtually all nonviolent crimes as imposed to imprisonment. Sure would cost less.

One thing that is getting overlooked somewhat on confiscation is that regardless of justifications or rationalizations for it...confiscation gives the government too much power over individual citizens. As it stands now the government has NO standard of proof with seized property. The owner has the entire burden of proof whether it is a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Going by news reports, a number of American citizens have been stopped on interstates on a "profile" stop, had their cars searched and large sums of money found. They had no criminal records, no charges were filed against them and their money was seized.

A friend of mine considers this to be armed robbery and should be treated as any armed robbery by the individual. I'm not prepared to go this far...yet. But on a bad hair day?

Wasn't there a Supreme Court ruling about this a few weeks ago? If I remember correctly the couple had rented an attached room to a man later accused of murder. The police arrived with a search warrant when the couple was not home and after the accused no longer lived in the attached room. The police broke into the attached room, searched it, and did not find anything. They then proceeded to break into the couple's house where the accused had never had accessd. In the couples' bedroom closet they found a few thousand dollars. They seized it and then would not tell the couple how to get the cash returned. The Supreme Court ruled the police had no duty to inform the couple of the procedure to do so...

I find it outrageous that the police would conduct this particular search without the owners present. It would have made no difference in their investigation to wait. This is intolerable arrogance on their part and is an example of the reasons the police and the government have the public relations problems they are currently experiencing.

I find it absolutely intolerable that they entered the couple's home besides that one room in any event. Based on the news reports I read they had not even a smidgin of justification for doing so.

[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited February 23, 1999).]
 
Rich; no, if you have a 'domestic dispute' with your lady, and are convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse, they take your gun, not your house.

There was a recent change in gun laws that forbid possession of a firearm by those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse, EVEN IF THE CONVICTION HAD HAPPENED BEFORE THE CHANGE IN THE LAW. A lot of police officers faced losing their guns, and I believe the situation to be as yet unresolved. Here I thought that an ex post facto law was forbidden by the Constitution.

Regarding the above posts proposing Draconian punishment for drunk driving. Sorry, but it doesn't work. Addicts do not really have control over their actions to the extent that they are deterred by the thought of being caught. Getting drunk drivers off the road is a problem, but as I recall, the actual incidence of DUI is dropping, and has been for some time. If this is the case, it is due to education and peer pressure. Your comments are welcome. Walt
 
Kinda Preachy... :)

Well, here we go again. Let me voice my disclaimers first.

My father was crippled by a drunk driver while said driver was exercising his constitutional right(?) to be irresponsible.
This caused untold emotional, financial and physical distress to our family his entire life.

Yet I have a drink occasionally and have no problems with other behaving responsibly. As a sidenote, my wife used to work in the same building as the HQ's for MADD, and those people were, ah, interesting. I don't question their motives, but they seem to have an overabundance of passive aggressive control type personalities over there. Sarah Brady, are you listening? I heard that she was arrested for DUI. Interesting....

A drunk won't stop driving if you take away their license or car. Maybe, maybe it would reduce it, but at what cost. The same idiotic argument could be used against handguns. I've see guns used and abused, up close and personal, and the same tired, not well thought-out argument can be used for total firearm bans, and you all know it.

I enjoy N.Y.C. when I get a chance to get up there, but I like Disneyland too. I would never live in either place. The relative quality of life there doesn't begin to meet my expectations, and the "worldview" of many of the inhabitants of Manhattan and surrounding burroughs is, well, ah, interesting. They've always been nice to me.

Guiliani, bless his heart, must have some severe blockage in his carotid arteries blocking blood flow to his head. Also, being a father myself, his complete inability to control his son's behavior during public functions speaks volumes on Guiliani, and it's not good, IMHO. :)

Also, you usually see this
thinking with liberal minded folk. They like to rush toward a "solution" without realizing any of the long-term trade-offs that inevitably pop up, and the mess we're left with.

When I used to see people do and say silly things when I was a child, I would ask my dad, "Why do they do that?". I trusted his advice, being a veteran of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. His answer was,
"A fool does, what a fool does".
Makes sense to me.
And so it goes.....
 
Ladies, Gentlemen,

Thank you for your thoughts. I believe that all of the responses to this topic have illuminated some of the darker regions of my mind (those areas that have, of late, gone unmaintained).

I see confiscation/forfeiture now as a gross injustice and violation of some of the enumerated rights in the Constitution. And certainly a governmental power grab that far outreaches it's outlined boundries.

Certainly there are better ways to punish those who recklessly endanger others. I would certainly favor public floggings, executions, etc... (NOT pay-per-view) Maybe the stocks could be brought back to the town square? 8)

I feel my mind stretching, and I'm desperately trying to grasp concepts that I have just recently been introduced to. Not only on this board, but on others, as well. I feel the time is short, and the questions many, and the answers, at times, complex.

Thank you for your insight and input!

John/az
 
John-
I do hereby bestow on you the title of Member of the Month. Not because of your position but because of the manner in which you've handled strong public disagreement with your original statement (including my own). You, sir, are to be commended.

The rest of you guys? You already know how I feel about the polite manner in which you debate your positions...you're the best on the net!
Rich



[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited February 23, 1999).]
 
John, by your handle I wonder if you are in Arizona? If so, I'd like to buy you a drink. Takes a big man to work through his philosophy so honestly and with such aplomb. I went through the same process, as I am sure many here did. The first time a friend explained asset seizures to me, I didn't believe him! Called my U.S. Senator, and he sent the law to me. I couldn't believe my eyes. Outrageous laws such as this are very damaging to civilian / LEO relations.

And Spartacus, you have answered that ancient question: 'Why does Spartacus cross the center line? To pee in the bushes on the other side!' ;) That was rich.
 
John has reacted well, hasn't he? Congratulations, John.

From someone in favor of public flogging, it may come as a surprise that I oppose capital punishment. Why? Not because of the poor, misguided, deprived as children, criminals I assure you. For these two simple reasons: 1)The government is my agent as a sovereign citizen. If we imprison someone unjustly, we can let them go and attempt to make amends. If we turn someone's butt into hamburger...we can let them turn the appropriate parties butt into hamburger for doing it to them unjustly. We cannot say sorry to a dead man. We cannot make amends. 2)I do not believe a government should have the power to kill any of its citizens through the judiciary. This is too much power for any government to be trusted with.

Several years ago, a man on death row for three years was freed here in Georgia. Not for technicalities, not because the trial was unfair nor that he had inadequate counsel. He was freed because new evidence showed he was totally innocent of all charges. As he had maintained from the day of his arrest.

Are you willing for the government acting as your agent to execute an innocent man? I'm not. I believe that one of our Founding Fathers once commented on our justice system by stating,"I would rather see ten guilty men go free that to see one innocent man unjustly punished." I'm with him...right down the line.

In the best of all possible worlds, capital punishment would be administered at the time of the crime by the intended victim. Let's work for that world.

I have told people for years that the U.S. doesn't have too many criminals...we have too many victims who allow criminals time to grow and become sophisticated criminals.

Walt, we are talking on slightly different wavelengths here. Who said anything about deterrence? No criminal plans on getting caught. Therefore, by your argument, no laws deter any crime. Does that mean that all law is useless? No, it does not. I am in favor of public flogging for two reasons. One is for punishment for crime. Pure punishment whether it deters or not. The other is that I believe it would tend to deter further criminal acts through the administration of pain. Pain is a survival mechanism which lets an organism know that its survival is in danger. Pain functions below the level of conscious thought as does addiction. I agree with much of what you say regarding addiction-having worked in a treatment facility for several years as a psychiatric nurse. However, while the addict is not responsible for having the disease of addiction, he is responsible for his recovery. He is also responsible for when that recovery begins. It will begin when he hits bottom. For many, it is an extreme bottom. I'm willing to help him get there.
 
The hypothesis that "criminals don't plan on getting caught" is a popular and relatively true one. The reason that, inspite of that hypothesis, punishment does deter crime is that there are a number of people that are kept from being criminals by the fear of punishment.

If they could confiscate my car for speed violations, I would slow down. In the mean time, I'll remain a habitual offender. (most recnet stop 82 in a 65 in NC last week..)

I pay taxes which I think are improperly spent because I don't want to be punished. I don't do it becuase a moral feeling that I have against violating the law. I do it because I don't want to go to jail.

Who knows, if the punishment handed down by the state wouldn't be so bad, maybe people would Shoot the drug dealers that blatantly sell on street corners in every city in America. Misdemeanor Murder they could call it. Say, a $1000 fine and confiscation of the gun if the shooting is done under reckless conditions.

To say that punishment doesn't deter crime is just ignoring the facts of human nature. It may not deter "criminals," but it certainly keeps many citizens from becoming criminals.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Gentlmen, Thank you.

As I said, time feels short to me, even shorter as I read the newest of EO's signed by our president during his impeachment hearings. It may throw up warning flags for yourself if you have not read it already.

Jeff, I do live in the Phoenix valley, and I go to Usery Pass to the pits there to shoot. I also attended the CCW class offered at Caswells. That should give you some reference points! :)

John/az
 
Rob;Dont read anything into this,but speeding is your crime of choice and can be every bit as dangerous as drinking and driving.
I dont drink and I have no problen with revoking the licenses of CONVICTED drunk drivers.
Taking the car upon conviction would be alright too,but this law is unconstitutional.
Suppose some drunk steals Rudy's car. Then what?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Actually Ed, I was hoping for more outrage at my habitual speeding... I was relying on peer pressure from TFL to get me to slooowwwww down before another suici-...excuse... motorcylce season gets here. ;)
 
Ed - now THAT would be rich! Some drunk punk swipes Guilliani's car, and his Storm Troopers confiscate and trash it looking for drugs and weapons. Hehehehehe!!!...
 
I stand against laws allowing confiscation of property because of the obvious conflict of interest. There are certain areas of the country known for confiscation of newer vehicles, often without being charged with a crime. GRRRR.

Can you say "armed robbery"?
 
When the "State" profits from crime/infractions and institutes new infractions to increase profits....we have a corrupt State

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top