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.
#1: watchman To: Deckard (#0)
It's just a vicious cycle...
watchman posted on 2020-08-23 11:07:08 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
Wow! What a coincidence that an undercover narcotics officer a) just so happened to be at the convenience store that she drove to, b) wanted to buy marijuana, c) approached her out of everyone there, d) and she just so happened to have some for sale.
Almost as though she's done this before. And before that. And before that.
She's a drug dealer and her boyfriend's complicit. F**k 'em. Take their Jeep.
misterwhite posted on 2020-08-23 11:50:44 Reply Private Reply
#3: Pinguinite 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 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: Pinguinite (#3)
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 Reply Private Reply
#5: watchman To: misterwhite (#2)
Why not seize the convenience store? It was also used in the commission of the crime.
And if you say the convenience store had no knowledge of the crime then how do you know the boyfriend knew and was complicit. You jumped to a conclusion...
watchman posted on 2020-08-23 15:05:14 Reply Private Reply
#6: Pinguinite To: misterwhite (#4)
I think Nolu can fill you in on the details, if he's inclined. I am echoing what I believe he himself said.
Not true at all. The person from whom it is seized is given a receipt and notice.
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 Reply Private Reply
#7: Pinguinite To: watchman (#5)
Hell, it sounds to me like the whole state of Arizona should be seized, shouldn't it?
Pinguinite posted on 2020-08-23 15:53:53 Reply Private Reply
#8: watchman To: Pinguinite (#7)
With a little digging they could find cause to seize misterwhite's car AND home.
watchman posted on 2020-08-23 16:43:19 Reply Private Reply
#9: Stoner To: watchman (#8)
LOL !!!
Stoner posted on 2020-08-23 16:58:07 Reply Private Reply
#10: watchman To: Stoner (#9)
When they pull up with a tow truck to take his old man car, probably a beige '79 Fairmont.
watchman posted on 2020-08-23 17:07:53 Reply Private Reply
#11: misterwhite To: watchman (#8)
misterwhite posted on 2020-08-23 18:28:04 Reply Private Reply
#12: misterwhite To: watchman (#10)
Don't have that. But I do have a red '69 Corvette in the barn.
misterwhite posted on 2020-08-23 18:32:12 Reply Private Reply
#13: misterwhite To: watchman (#5)
Civil asset forfeiture doesn't require a criminal charge.
misterwhite posted on 2020-08-23 18:34:42 Reply Private Reply
#14: watchman To: misterwhite (#12)
Convertible? Side pipes?
watchman posted on 2020-08-23 18:37:14 Reply Private Reply
#15: watchman To: misterwhite (#12)
Think it was red.
Don't recall the year.
watchman posted on 2020-08-23 20:14:30 Reply Private Reply
#16: misterwhite To: watchman (#14)
Passes everything on the road except a gas station.
misterwhite posted on 2020-08-24 11:02:14 Reply Private Reply
#17: watchman To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#16)
O, you've got the Holy Grail.
I was 12 when that car came out. At that age I was captivated.
But I'm still holding out for a mid-30's pickup. Sneakypete has one...a '34 Ford.
One thing, misterwhite, I hope you aren't out slinging gravel on those less fortunate than yourself.
watchman posted on 2020-08-24 14:52:48 Reply Private Reply
#18: nolu chan To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#6)
[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. Certainly this doesn't apply here as the car is registered to a known owner.
Ownership gets involved when a person is carrying a large amount of cash and the cash is seized as the suspected fruit of a crime until the person shows a legal source of income for the cash. In cases where it is drug money, the individual has no real legal claim to the money, and may abandon it without claiming it as his own. The money is seized as contraband of a crime and he chooses not to provide evidence that he is the criminal claimant of ownership. Rather he denies knowledge of who the money belongs to in preference to saying he earned it fair and square by selling drugs. He did not use the money to commit a crime.
In the case in the article, the car is seized as having been used in furtherance of a crime. Ownership of the vehicle is not relevant. They do not question his ownership prior to the car being seized. His lawful ownership was alleged to have been lost when the car became contraband. Should he choose to challenge the seizure, they will have to prove that the car was involved in the alleged criminal activity.
nolu chan posted on 2020-08-24 16:29:32 Reply Private Reply
#19: sneakypete To: Deckard (#0)
sneakypete posted on 2020-08-25 09:23:36 Reply Private Reply
#20: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#2)
No,Fuck YOU for being the Nazi that you are.
sneakypete posted on 2020-08-25 09:25:02 Reply Private Reply
#21: sneakypete To: Pinguinite (#6)
Yew sum kinda pinko-commie,boy?
Weeze watchin yew!
sneakypete posted on 2020-08-25 09:27:14 Reply Private Reply
#22: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#13)
Good to see you admit you think "the authorities" are free to steal our personal property from us at any time,just because they want it.
sneakypete posted on 2020-08-25 09:29:13 Reply Private Reply
#23: sneakypete To: watchman (#17)
I also have a 36 IHC D-2 half-ton pu that is all-original. Only reason I am not driving it now is the damn radiator blew up,and nobody sells or makes direct replacements. Cheapest estimate I got was 1,000 bucks,and even then I had to send them my old radiator to use for a pattern.
sneakypete posted on 2020-08-25 09:32:18 Reply Private Reply
#24: misterwhite To: watchman (#17)
How gauche. How déclassé.
misterwhite posted on 2020-08-25 11:56:16 Reply Private Reply
#25: Pinguinite To: sneakypete (#23)
In a few more years, you may be able to have a new radiator 3D printed.
Pinguinite posted on 2020-08-25 12:35:38 Reply Private Reply