BULLSHIT. noise ordinance - LOSE YOUR CAR. FTP

[Aaron]

I may have read the article too hastily... and it was poorly written. To me "taking a car away" means permanently.
BUUUT... a municipality trying to seize cars would not be any surprise to me, especially when we have the civil property seizure laws we have.

Don't some places actually seize cars that are taken from alleged DWI/DUI offenders?

However, property laws may be getting better. I won't look for it in VA any time soon, though.
http://www.aclu.org/police/forfeit/1457 ... 10208.html

It was poorly written, as all news articles are. This sentence gives the real meaning: "The first time a car is stopped for violating the noise ordinance, it will be towed. No questions asked," said Sarasota Police Captain Lucius Bonner.

Depends on the offense, but for a simple noise violation, I can't see it happening. None of the departments I'm familiar with seize cars for any of the DUI/DWI infractions. Possession is a different story though.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Possession is a different story though.

But it shouldn't be any different. ANY seizure of property without court involvement is unconstitutional.

I think I've also heard of some places which seize cars used in street racing.

[Aaron]

So basically we should lessen the fine for possession with intent to distribute, trafficking, and the other serious, felony offenses that we seize property for? We need these stiff punishments, and we need strict enforcement.

And, FWIW, the seizure of a vehicle in a drug-related case is "legal" by your terms. The vehicle is not seized right away, it is impounded and held as evidence in the trial. If the subject is found guilty, then it is seized and becomes the property of the AHJ.

[The Dark Side of Will]

And, FWIW, the seizure of a vehicle in a drug-related case is "legal" by your terms. The vehicle is not seized right away, it is impounded and held as evidence in the trial. If the subject is found guilty, then it is seized and becomes the property of the AHJ.

I never said that the government should not be able to seize property under any circumstances.

The CONSTITUTION requires that courts must adjudicate the matter BEFORE any seizure of property can occur.

The way it currently works in most drug cases is that the property is seized and disposed of BEFORE a verdict is rendered (probably before the matter even goes to court). In a lot of cases, property is seized and charges aren't even filed. This is CLEARLY in violation of the Constitutional requirement.

[lucky]

I agree with your sentiment Will, but in most cases like that, the property that is seized is an illegal substance, and therefore constitutional rights don't apply. Impounding and property held as evidence isn't technically seizure in most municipalities, and theoretically is supposed to be returned after the matter is resolved. I've heard of some states where they auction it off for you if you don't have the $$ to pay your legal fees.

[Blue Shift]

I think law enforcement needs to get its wings clipped a little bit. The resulting humiliation may check some of the ego-centric, self righteous, power trip mindset of some of the cops that got in for the wrong reason *cough*, and it'd force them to focus on what *really* matters the most, instead.

If the sheeple complain, maybe they'll begin to consider the ultimate truth: nobody can protect and serve you better than you, nor can anybody care about you more than you. After all, when a crime happens, you're the first on scene, so step up to the plate and be ready instead of living in some candy coated, false security cuz it doesn't work. Personal responsibility - I wish it'd come back into style.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I agree with your sentiment Will, but in most cases like that, the property that is seized is an illegal substance, and therefore constitutional rights don't apply. Impounding and property held as evidence isn't technically seizure in most municipalities, and theoretically is supposed to be returned after the matter is resolved. I've heard of some states where they auction it off for you if you don't have the $$ to pay your legal fees.

There are some Federal statutes that allow property used in the comission of a crime to be seized on the spot. These are the laws that violate 5th ammendment rights. These laws were enacted for the "war on drugs" but are obviously abusive.

My cousin's ex-boyfriend's neighbor had this happen. He was an elderly gent with limited mobility and probably couldn't even get to the back of his wooded lot where someone was growing weed. The weed was found and his land was seized. I'm not sure if it ever even went to trial, but you can bet he didn't get his land back.

Think about it this way... If you get wronged by the government, you can mount a legal battle to right the wrong. To finance this legal battle, you can sell property, mortgage your assets, etc.
If your property has been SEIZED, how do you fight that battle? your means to right the wrong have been taken away.
That's why this topic is so quiet and so insidious.

[lucky]

I wasn't saying it was right. I wasn't even saying the spirit in which the law was written is the way it is actually carried out.
No one thinks their shit stinks less than our government.

My HS history teacher was nearly ruined by the IRS.
They harassed him with phone calls and letters. Put a lien on his pay for back taxes. Wouldn't even listen to him or check their own accuracy; they said he owed 5 years back taxes on his gas station, he never/currently owned a gas station. He finally resolved it by calling the IRS, getting someone on the phone he had never dealt with, asking to verify their records in regards to the specifics of his gas station. He then agreed to settle and cut a check, at the address of the aforementioned gas station. The next week, he meets the IRS agent in front of a patch of woods on the side of the road and says, "Could you kindly show me where my gas station is?"

He got his money back, but not even an apology for the stress they gave him over 6 months.

[Kohburn]

towing the car of a DUI driver is not seizing it, they get it back. In most cases its a matter of public safety to get the vehicle to a safe location.

taking the car from someone who is perfectly fit to drive, has a liscense, has paid their registration dues, had their inspections, is NOT legal and is a travesty of the justice system.

who decides what is "too loud", and years down the road who decides what else is a "nuisance"

this is a slippery slope you are playing with Aaron, one that is common with the young and naive before they realize how easy it is to lose all your rights if you don't start by protecting the ones you already take for granted.

[Kohburn]

I think law enforcement needs to get its wings clipped a little bit. The resulting humiliation may check some of the ego-centric, self righteous, power trip mindset of some of the cops that got in for the wrong reason *cough*, and it'd force them to focus on what *really* matters the most, instead.

If the sheeple complain, maybe they'll begin to consider the ultimate truth: nobody can protect and serve you better than you, nor can anybody care about you more than you. After all, when a crime happens, you're the first on scene, so step up to the plate and be ready instead of living in some candy coated, false security cuz it doesn't work. Personal responsibility - I wish it'd come back into style.

exactly - why do I want to carry conceiled 24/7? because I can't fit a cop in my pocket to prevent the crime from happening, instead they just show up in time to take a report and maybe get someone to the hospital. they are the cleanup crew.

[Kohburn]

So noise violations that end in impoundment would be quite welcome by society here, and I wish they'd do it here.

and thus the sheep go "BAAAAHHHHH" as they happily give away their rights and are one step closer to being sent to the mass furnices or gas chambers.