Farmer's savings among police seizures that paid for Montana K-9 unit

Casper Star ^ | May 31, 2015 | Alison Noon

[sport]

This year, Montana became the fourth state to overhaul what activists call "policing for profit." Beginning July 1, officers must store suspects' assets, such as the cash Ayala had in his trunk, until the owner is convicted of a crime involving that property.

That can be arraigned pretty quickly.

[teacherwoes]

That's crazy talk. Give the people that and the next thing they're going to want is free speech.

And if they get free speech they will want to have a gun so they can protect their speech. It's a dangerous slope.

[Sherman Logan]

Sine relevant points from the article:

Ayala's license plates were expired, his driver's license was suspended and he should have been driving with a breath-alcohol ignition device.

Despite finding no drugs the state petitioned to keep the cash. District Judge Brenda Gilbert sided with the state and ordered Ayala to relinquish the money on Oct. 27, 2014.

Don't agree with what they did, but it wasn't "the state" or "the cops" that were responsible. Thank good Judge Brenda.

[Pontiac]

For guidance they could refer to something codified by the state of Virginia in 1776 and even find some influence in an English document, circa 1215, called The Magna Carta...

Funny the forfeiture law in question is traceable to English common law of deodand forfeiture (guilty property).

The logic behind the law is that the property itself was guilty of a crime and was then confiscated by the state.

[LaRueLaDue]

So, you think it is okay for the cops to steal his money, based on trumped up drug charges that had nothing to do with the violations you just mentioned? Really?

[Sherman Logan]

Nope. I was just pointing out that the cops didn't steal his money. It was confiscated in full compliance with the law as determined by a judge.

I think it's a bad law, and I'm glad the state changed it. I also think the state should refund money to those who got bit by the old law.

"Stealing" is, of course, illegal taking of property. This was perfectly legal.

It is, BTW, a very good example of how something can be legal yet wrong.

[Sherman Logan]

I should also point out that I don’t think a dog’s response should be allowed to be submitted as evidence unless actual physical evidence is discovered as a result.

IOW, the dog can alert cops where to look. If they don’t anything when they do, they’re SOOL.

[T-Bone Texan]

Cops use the supposed actions of their dogs as a pretense to snoop in people’s cars.

That has been pretty well established.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Congress ought to pass legislation that no person shall be derived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

That's a VERY slippery slope.

Next thing you know, folks will be carrying around guns.

[kiryandil]

I don’t know about that. Does that really seem reasonable?

Pretty sure the Founding Fathers would have lynched anyone proposing something so preposterous...

[kiryandil]

Don't agree with what they did, but it wasn't "the state" or "the cops" that were responsible. Thank good Judge Brenda.

How's about a blast from the (recent) past?:

We need to lose a lot of the "policing". They have NO "duty" to do anything other than punch a clock, as per the Supreme Court. And there's WAY too many of them.

Panopticon bad.

[kiryandil]

Just remember: Everything that the Nazis & the Stalinists did was legal.

Roland Freisler got his, though...

[kiryandil]

GASP!

Are you questioning the credentials of Officer-Judge Barky!

HORRORS! LOL! :)