Posted on 09/25/2015 12:52:04 PM PDT by reaganaut1
According to the Institute for Justice’s grading of the states on how bad they are when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, Arizona is among the worst, getting a grade of D. (Only five states are worse, with D-minus grades.)
One reason why Arizona deserves its bad grade is the fact that its law attempts to deter individuals who have had their property seized from trying to recover it. Specifically, property owners who decide to fight back are liable for repaying the state for its attorneys’ fees if they lose.
A recent case, Cox v. Voyles, et al arose out of an asset seizure and illustrates the problem that the state’s intimidating law on attorneys’ fees presents.
Rhonda Cox has lived in Arizona for ten years. In April 2013, she purchased a used pickup truck, which she titled in her name and on which she carries the insurance.
She often allowed her son, Chris to use her truck and in August of 2013 he had driven it to a store. Upon returning to the vehicle, Chris was confronted by Pinal County sheriff’s department deputies who were investigating the theft of a tonneau cover (which goes over the back of a pickup truck) and a truck hood. The deputies concluded that the cover and the hood on the Cox truck were the stolen items and therefore put Chris under arrest.
And of course, they confiscated the truck under Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture statute.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
So did the ladies son steel the truck hood and bed cover or not? Bad writing as the article is purposely ambiguous on that key piece of work information.
Steel/steal whatever.
A couple discrepancies in the Forbes story - they neglected to mention the installation by her son of a replacement engine in the truck the day (which she paid for) before the (presumed) arrest and confiscation.
Honestly, it does sound like she was a straw buyer, no matter what her future plans for the truck were - for all intents and purposes, she bought the truck for her son to use and maintain. It assumed her son would ‘get back on his feet’ and buy a truck of his own, and part of his payment for use of the truck was to tow RV vehicles and other assorted tasks.
Seems like an exchange of value with both parties getting some.
And I’m going to randomly assume that the truck has long been sold by the state of Arizona at auction, and the proceeds distributed to whatever agencies profit from such things.
Seems more that the ACLU is using this as a wedge to end the loser pays as well as the filing fees associated with seized property, but I’m not sure they hitched the wagon to the right star here - in the essence of the case, does she have standing to contest the seizure? Maybe as a joint litigant, but alone, I don’t think so.
Forfeiture laws need be rewritten.
How can one be a “straw buyer” for a truck? Why was the son unable to make a purchase of said vehicle? Can one be prohibited from buying a vehicle?
Yes; you have to have the financial means to buy a truck. Duh?
That doesn’t make the person who bought it a “straw buyer” it make them the owner.
Seems the form the prosecutor/sheriff used (fill in the blank type) was for drug/racketeering, and, at most, they charged her son with burglary, which is not included in the forfeiture laws.
They also used "family vehicle" which is used for insurance/accident cases, not for criminal cases.
Forbes did not do a good job of this story, and when I find myself siding with the ACLU it is scary, but it seems this case is a good one to show the abuse being used against people to create slush funds for the offices.
Agreed.
How did the deputies dtermine the items on his truck were the ones stolen? Neither item is unique nor do they have serial numbers.
I have argued repeatedly that civil asset forfeiture laws should be pulled out by the roots. They are just as incompatible with any sense of justice and fairness as the Jim Crow laws were. Let’s hope that the court sees the blatant unconstitutionality of Arizona’s statute and strikes it down.
We trusted our government when they started this program. It was supposed to be targeted at drug traffickers only. In time they become monsters, robbing the people. This gives me a head ache.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.