The Cellar - They know your deepest, secret, fear.

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - They know your deepest, secret, fear. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11345)

I've always liked the comedic take on this sort of thing...namely, the fact that, when you bounce a check, they charge you for more of what they know you don't have in the first place.

Business is paradoxical that way. Got millions? Then you can get a 2% loan on large ticket item purchases. Stone broke? Then your rate is 20%.

It may make business sense, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Quote:

Although I doubt it would add up to being $1000 like I exaggerated above.

It could quite easily cost you a grand around here. If they grab it on Friday and you can't get it until Monday.

If you don't know it was towed, and not stolen, it could take days or weeks to just find out where it went. If you report it stolen the cops should be able to cross check and discover it was towed, easily. But that doesn't happen in reality, because interdepartmental information exchange is poor at best.

Towing your car without notice for an overdue book or tax is stupid, but Florida grabbing your car, just because you have been accused, not convicted, of a misdemeanor, just boggles my mind.
How can that possibly be Constitutional? :headshake

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How can that possibly be Constitutional? :headshake

Haven't you heard? There is no Constitution anymore. It's like the road blocks they put up around here sometimes. They say it is Constitutional because they pick, say, every 5 cars...so that somehow makes it "random" and therefore is not entrapment. Pffft.

I think they should just wait outside bars and gun you down for walking out of one. That will show those social animals a thing or two. I'm sure it will make them think twice about that second Smirnoff Grape. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I think they should just wait outside bars and gun you down for walking out of one.

My point exactly. Hey, you break the law, you pay. I say, guilty until proven innocent and simply looking guilty is proof enough. Also, people who are mindless enough to forget to return library books or to bounce a check every five years or so are showing a pattern of escalating criminal behavior and it's better for ME if they are simply out of society for good.

:thumb: You said it! :rotflol:

Funny thing here in Florida...an awful lot of the confiscated cars seem to be be Porsches, Corvettes, Mercedes, Lexus, and Hummers. Or maybe I'm just jaded. A few (very dated) statistics on forfeiture:

Quote:

Facts about property forfeiture in U.S.

Number of Americans whose property has been seized under property forfeiture laws by federal, state, or local government since 1985: 200,000+
Number of different statutes under which federal agents can seize property: 200+
Dollar value of private property seized by state and federal law enforcement agents under "civil forfeiture" laws: $4.1 billion
Dollar value of private property stolen by criminals in 1992: $3.8 billion
Percentage of asset forfeiture cases where the property owner is never charged with a crime -- yet the government can and usually does keep the property: 80%
Percentage increase, from 1985 to 1991, of the number of federal seizures of property: 1,500%
The race of individuals whose property is seized in airports and on highways, because they fit the police profile of a drug courier: 75-90% Black or Hispanic
In New York, legislators have considered a law letting local officials confiscate "cars, boats, and planes" used in connection with any misdemeanor.
In Georgia, FBI agents seized three Mercedes-Benzes from a businesswoman after alleging that her husband placed illegal bets on sporting events from the car phones.
In Texas and Florida, property forfeiture now applies to any criminal activity.
In New Jersey, it applies to any alleged criminal activity.
In Massachusetts, the state can seize the assets of corporations that violate environmental laws.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service has seized more than 30,000 cars and trucks since 1990 from people helping illegal immigrants enter the U.S.
In New Jersey, officials confiscated home office equipment from a man charged with practicing psychiatry without a license.
In Washington, DC, police routinely stop pedestrians and confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry, even when no drugs are found and no charges filed.
Examples and statistics from:
Lost Rights by James Bovard, St. Martin's Press (1994)

Forfeiting Our Property Rights by Rep. Henry Hyde, Cato Institute (1995)

I, personally, have nothing to hide but the erosion of our constitutional rights as given in the 5th and 14th amendments is frightening.

Stormie

Quote:

Percentage of asset forfeiture cases where the property owner is never charged with a crime -- yet the government can and usually does keep the property: 80%

Huh? I wonder if this is because the owners fled before they could be nailed?
Can't be plea bargaining before they were charged, can it?
Maybe an employee, relative, or friend of the owner was charged?
:confused:

Also, it's not quite as strong a statement as it appears to be:

In 80% of cases, the property owner is never charged with a crime.
"Usually" in these cases, so we'll say 51%, the government ends up keeping the property. The rest of the time they don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Or the process to reclaim property from the police is completely nonfunctional, and the stuff gets auctioned off before anyone even looks at your forms signed in triplicate.

I disagree. What can be a stronger statement than the government seizing private property without due process.
That flies in the face of the constitution and the entire legal system.
The sanctity of private property is the very foundation of the United States and our freedoms. :eek:

Why would you have to reclaim property from the police? Were not talking about lost and found umbrellas, are we?
The only case I can think of is weapons surrendered under a protection order but wouldn't you have to be charged to obtain an order? Maybe not? And that's surrendered not seized, but that's semantics I guess. :(

I'm totally in agreement with you Bruce, I just thought that the statistic was worded in a deliberately confusing way. And I think that the reason behind most of the never-reclaimed property is of the type you suggested,

Quote:

...because the owners fled before they could be nailed?
Can't be plea bargaining before they were charged, can it?
Maybe an employee, relative, or friend of the owner was charged?

rather than red tape and triplicate forms holding people back.

Yeah, I suppose if they seized my Luv-Ewe, I might just let it go. :redface:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Maybe they decided it was eminent domain!:rolleyes:

With the "it's ok to shoot somebody if you feel threatened" law in FLA, I wonder how many impoundment contractors will be killed. YeeeeeHaaaaa!:shotgun:

Quote:

Civil forfeiture is similar in many ways to criminal forfeiture. However, while criminal forfeiture means to impose an additional penalty upon the owner of property for his wrongful conduct, a civil forfeiture action is brought against the property itself. (You will see funny case names arising from civil forfeiture cases, such as "United States v 336 Willow Street".) For criminal forfeiture to result, the owner of the property must be convicted of a crime, whereas civil forfeiture can occur even if the owner is acquitted. In some cases, the property owner won't even be charged with a crime. Civil forfeiture actions must demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the property has a sufficient relationship to illegal activity to justify its forfeiture under the law. Criminal cases are tried under the much higher standard of, "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Example of an asset being involved in forfeiture:

State vs One Thousand Two Hundred Sixy Seven Dollars

Quote:

Unless provided in statute (as in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)), innocence of the owner is typically not a defense. Furthermore, courts interpret the statutory defenses stringently. For instance, courts may apply an objective standard to determine if the owner should have had knowledge of the property's illegal use, rather require proof of actual knowledge. The owner may argue that no crime ever occurred, that the government lacked probable cause, or that the property is not closely enough connected to the crime to be considered an instrumentality or proceeds.

Should any of these defenses succeed, the government need simply return the property to the owner. It is not liable to the owner damages caused by the property's detention, including damages resulting during the original seizure or a failure to look after the property while in government custody.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Forfeiture

This is one of the most abused functions of the police and courts. The CAFRA Act of 2000 is supposed to curb some of the abuse, but the forfeiture laws still tilt heavily towards the police/courts.

Stormie