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.
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.
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.