[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: The Cops Took This Guy's $15,000 Jeep Because His Girlfriend Allegedly Used It for a $25 Marijuana Sale
Source: Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/2020/08/21/the-c ... ed-it-for-a-25-marijuana-sale/
Published: Aug 21, 2020
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2020-08-23 01:09:31 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1551
Comments: 25

Kevin-McBride-GI

Kevin McBride (Goldwater Institute)

Tucson handyman Kevin McBride was hard at work one Friday last May when his girlfriend offered to get him a cold drink from a convenience store. She took his Jeep, his sole means of transportation and the basis of his livelihood. Then the cops took his Jeep, and local prosecutors are now demanding a $1,900 ransom before he can get it back.

This sort of shakedown would be clearly felonious if ordinary criminals attempted it. But as McBride discovered, it is legal under Arizona's civil asset forfeiture law. The cops said McBride's girlfriend had used his Jeep to sell a small amount of marijuana to an undercover officer for $25. Although the charges against her were dropped, the Jeep is still being held as a party to that alleged offense, and McBride has to pay for the privilege of getting his property back.

"They're extorting money from me," McBride says, "and I didn't do anything. I don't know how they can do that. You know, we don't live in a free country anymore, because that's not freedom."

Ordinarily, someone in McBride's position would be inclined to give in, since challenging the forfeiture would cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, and there would be no guarantee of winning. But the Goldwater Institute is representing McBride pro bono, arguing that Arizona's system of legalized theft violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process and the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.

When he began to wonder what was keeping his girlfriend, McBride hitched a ride to the convenience store, where he was dismayed to find police loading his Jeep onto a flatbed truck. When he asked the cops what was going on, he was handed a phone number to call for an explanation. He tried the number for three weeks before someone answered, which is when he found out that his Jeep had been seized because of the alleged marijuana sale.

Under civil forfeiture law, neither the fact that McBride was not accused of a crime nor the fact that the charges against his girlfriend were dropped made any difference. Officially, the Jeep itself is accused of participating in criminal activity. If McBride could scrape together the money for a lawyer to challenge the forfeiture, the government would have to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the Jeep was involved in a penny-ante marijuana sale.

That is actually an improvement on the standard that applied before Arizona amended its forfeiture law in 2017, when "a preponderance of the evidence" (any probability greater than 50 percent) was enough. But the current standard is still a much lighter burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the rule that applies in criminal cases. And unlike criminal defendants, innocent owners like McBride have no right to court-appointed counsel, which makes it much easier to pressure them into "mitigation" agreements like the one proposed by the Pima County Attorney's Office.

"An outright return of the vehicle is inappropriate in this case," Deputy County Attorney Kevin Krejci asserted in an August 11 letter to McBride. Instead, "the state offers the following mitigation of forfeiture," Krejci wrote, saying the Jeep "would be released from forfeiture for $1,900.00." But "if we cannot agree on this mitigation, then the state will proceed with a Declaration of Forfeiture." Since Arizona assigns 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds to the law enforcement agencies responsible for the seizure, this proposal is tantamount to demanding a bribe for the return of stolen property.

Click for Full Text!

(2 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.

#3. To: Deckard (#0)

One premise behind the legal theory allowing civil asset forfeiture seems to be that property ownership is not established, and therefore seizing it does not offend any known person. Certainly this doesn't apply here as the car is registered to a known owner.

It's a flagrant violation of the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

A car would certainly qualify as an "effect", and a dropped case against the girlfriend would certainly eliminate any degree of reasonableness.

It's an example of how government, given enough time like 235 years, will find away to redefine the bill of rights to suit its ever encroaching desire for power.

Pinguinite  posted on  2020-08-23   11:57:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)

One premise behind the legal theory allowing civil asset forfeiture seems to be that property ownership is not established, and therefore seizing it does not offend any known person.

I never heard that theory -- though at the time of seizure, ownership is irrelevant. Certainly if the property is not later claimed it goes to the state.

misterwhite  posted on  2020-08-23   14:46:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 4.

#6. To: misterwhite (#4)

I never heard that theory --

I think Nolu can fill you in on the details, if he's inclined. I am echoing what I believe he himself said.

though at the time of seizure, ownership is irrelevant.

Not true at all. The person from whom it is seized is given a receipt and notice.

Certainly if the property is not later claimed it goes to the state.

In the case above, the property is most certainly claimed. The state's claim for taking it is that the property was used in illegal activity. And yet there's no criminal conviction upon which to base that premise.

Yes, I know that the pro-police state people are satisfied with the mere suspicion of illegal activity to destroy people's lives, but I'm personally in favor of the state proving crimes beyond reasonable doubt before imposing punishments on people like taking their cars and homes. Maybe that's just me, though.

Pinguinite  posted on  2020-08-23 15:52:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com