tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post7388938730428717118..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: When the state sues your car: Asset forfeiture folliesGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25221506769318118022012-07-27T14:59:43.686-05:002012-07-27T14:59:43.686-05:00It's real easy for the state to seize your pro...It's real easy for the state to seize your property, wait I meant to say the states property.<br /><br />Your car, RV, four wheeler motorcycle and your boat, all belongs to the state of Texas. You don't own them!<br /><br />How is this possible? When you buy a car all you get is a "certificate of title" and the state is sent the "original title of your car. That means the state is the true owner of your property.<br /><br />So in legal terms who really has true ownership of your car? You with a certificate of title or the original title which the state owns?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60997882363136538262012-07-27T09:20:33.053-05:002012-07-27T09:20:33.053-05:00It may not change your point any, but you should n...It may not change your point any, but you should note that there is a difference between a "defense" and an "affirmative defense." A defense must be disproved by the side with the burden of proof. Self-defense is a defense, not an affirmative defense. Once the evidence raises it in court, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. An affirmative defense on the other hand, must be proved by the party that raises it. Insanity, for example, must be proved by the defendant or the State wins.<br /><br />While the distinction may not impact the point you are trying to make very much, it is important to know it when you are criticizing the law for imposing the burden of proof on a particular party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-32974646252935404982012-07-27T08:45:05.860-05:002012-07-27T08:45:05.860-05:0011:49 that is a pretty good attempt at excusing an...11:49 that is a pretty good attempt at excusing and protecting the abuse of power... but its still horseshit.<br /><br />Most folks would not have a problem with seized property being held until the outcome of the accused's trial. And please, please quit calling people "criminal" until they have been found guilty of the charge. The simple fact that prosecutors can no longer distinguish between "accused" and "guilty" shows their flagrant, insubordinate, defiance of citizens constitutional rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-71363411035893523162012-07-26T16:25:28.318-05:002012-07-26T16:25:28.318-05:00I must confess that in my bad old days before the ...I must confess that in my bad old days before the scales fell from my eyes and I saw what the criminal justice system was really like, I purchased a home and 3 acres from the US Marshals' service that had been seized Previous owner raising marijuana in greenhouses. Ex wife turned him in. <br /><br />I feel bad now, I just don't believe in this asset seizure crap any more. Entirely too many abuses as described by the commenters above. I hope it can go away along with the enaction of a lot of other reforms we need in criminal justice and law enforcement.Prison Dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03651611135066437902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58844795254029666592012-07-26T16:08:27.972-05:002012-07-26T16:08:27.972-05:0011:49 writes, "First, it removes the property...11:49 writes, "First, it removes the property from the criminal's use." <br /><br />Is that really the case when the "criminal" was actually acquitted of the alleged crime? If you substitute the word "citizen" for "criminal," does it still make as much sense? Most Americans think property rights are a good thing. <br /><br />Sure, "all of us" (except of course the person you're taking the money from) would also "benefit" if we confiscated the bank accounts of every billionaire in the country and used their assets to lower taxes. Many would say that's not right, but it's hard to argue the majority wouldn't "benefit."<br /><br />12:35, if they did what you suggest it would of course defeat the point from the perspective of law enforcement, though I agree it would be much better public policy for LEOs not to operate based on a profit motive.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6807179886283952112012-07-26T14:54:36.467-05:002012-07-26T14:54:36.467-05:00We should change the burden on all cases (includin...We should change the burden on all cases (including civil) to beyond complete doubt. No more going with a "purty sure" or russian Roulette. I want to be completely sure that the damn job is done right.Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41756047259388318402012-07-26T14:13:03.285-05:002012-07-26T14:13:03.285-05:00It gets even better. In a recent New Mexico case, ...It gets even better. In a recent New Mexico case, the appellate court ruled that even if a stop/seizure is illegal the court hearing the forfeiture case can not take that into account. In practice, police are making stops and seizing vehicles blatantly illegally because they don't care about the criminal conviction, they just want the car. They'll stop you, seize your car, and never even give you a ticket. In one city the police were arresting people for DUI (who then blew 0.0 on the breathylizer), seizing their cars, and then filing a dismissal on the criminal charge. Many times there was not even a pretense for a lawful stop. The cops run a license plate, see that the registered owner had a prior DUI, and figure if they stop it and that guy is driving they can get the car regardless of whether he has been drinking or they can prove a new DUI. <br /><br />Even if the state Supreme Court says the practice is legal, it is godawful policy. But law enforcment has a lobby that is hard to beat, and all these seizures are funding goodies for the police.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-87810082919816696042012-07-26T12:49:54.345-05:002012-07-26T12:49:54.345-05:00I don't have a problem with assets being seize...I don't have a problem with assets being seized in the wake of a criminal conviction, but we've got municipalities that seize assets and then never even charge the supposed criminal with a crime at all (or the municipality says they're going to charge you unless you voluntarily give up the asset, which is the very definition of a shakedown).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-90221600260653651372012-07-26T12:35:28.666-05:002012-07-26T12:35:28.666-05:00One simple safeguard would solve the whole problem...One simple safeguard would solve the whole problem. Have any funds resulting from a seizure be dedicated to indigent defense or healthcare.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-37199394386952288322012-07-26T11:49:05.307-05:002012-07-26T11:49:05.307-05:00Grits the whole concept of an "in rem" a...Grits the whole concept of an "in rem" action goes back centuries to where "the Crown" seized pirate vessels used for criminal purposes under maritime law. In America, that concept transferred over to a recognition that society had a right to seize property used to facilitate criminal activity. Although the suit is instituted by the government (as a reprsentative of the people), it is really all of us that benefit. First, it removes the property from the criminal's use. Secondly, the forfeiture can, in many instances, provide a financial benefit to our government and, indirectly, taxpayers. <br /><br />The whole "innocent owner" defense typically only comes into play when property (in most instances vehicles) are clearly being used for a criminal purpose but a third party owner claims that he/she didn't know about that criminal purpose. That's one reason drug smugglers commonly rent vehicles or borrow other people's cars to transport dope. The innocent owner's defense is really not that hard to prove for a truly innocent owner, e.g., a commercial rental car company. <br /><br />You might be interested to know that there are several Texas court cases which have held that the value of the property forfeited was so disproportionate to the degree of the crime that the forfeiture actually was "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes, at least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-11733402957882689902012-07-26T11:06:47.041-05:002012-07-26T11:06:47.041-05:009:13, the state has no legitimate property claim o...9:13, the state has no legitimate property claim on the assets in forfeiture cases in the sense that they had a prior ownership interest, contractual stake, etc.. It's being used as a backdoor route to punishment, which as in criminal law should require proof beyond reasonable doubt.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74902901973724219572012-07-26T09:13:24.278-05:002012-07-26T09:13:24.278-05:00I'm curious as to why you think the burden of ...I'm curious as to why you think the burden of proof in an asset forfeiture case should be any different from any other civil case? For example, the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" in almost all personal injury cases, medical malpractice cases, motor vehicle collision cases, etc. Ultimately, they are suits to recover either property or money which is far different from convicting someone of a crime and locking them up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58998850794380073792012-07-26T09:02:23.838-05:002012-07-26T09:02:23.838-05:00It's ripe for abuse beyond imagination. Just l...It's ripe for abuse beyond imagination. Just look what happened in Shelby County. That is not the only county where abuses have occurred. The state should have to prove their case to seize your property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com