Skip to comments.
California Supreme Court Overturns Car Seizure Ordinance (it's a Start!)
theNewspaper.com ^
| 7/27/2007
Posted on 07/27/2007 7:03:53 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
Good ruling ... it's a start...
To: traviskicks
California Supreme Court Overturns Car Seizure Ordinance The California Supreme Court says cities may no longer seize automobiles from people merely accused of a crime.Ping
2
posted on
07/27/2007 7:05:07 AM PDT
by
SubGeniusX
($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
To: SubGeniusX
Rudy Giuliani is deeply saddened.
3
posted on
07/27/2007 7:05:07 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Impeach Chertoff and Gonzales. We can't wait until 2009 for them to be gone.)
To: SubGeniusX
Are they now going to reimburse people for the loss of their automobiles?
4
posted on
07/27/2007 7:05:32 AM PDT
by
TommyDale
(Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
To: SubGeniusX
5
posted on
07/27/2007 7:06:06 AM PDT
by
PBRSTREETGANG
(Apparently my former party considers me an "ugly nativist".)
To: SubGeniusX
California gets something right for a change.
6
posted on
07/27/2007 7:08:09 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: TommyDale
No, that would defeat the law’s original purpose as a source of income.
To: SubGeniusX
What about seizing vehicles of people driving without a license, an expired license, no insurance, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc?
8
posted on
07/27/2007 7:12:15 AM PDT
by
pnh102
To: Blood of Tyrants
What I find a bit scary is that 3 Justices voted the other way!
9
posted on
07/27/2007 7:15:21 AM PDT
by
basil
(Support the Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
To: pnh102
Would that be a typical illegal alien
that the government refuses to go after in America?
To: Issaquahking
Would that be a typical illegal alien
that the government refuses to go after in America?Probably. Of course, a legal citizen with no driver's license, no insurance, no registration, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol would be subject to a much harsher penalty than an illegal.
11
posted on
07/27/2007 7:23:10 AM PDT
by
pnh102
To: pnh102; Issaquahking
why is it that some people feel the need to Hijack almost EVERY dang thread ... to discuss the Illegal Immigration Issue ... THIS decision and the original statutes/policies HAD NOTHING to do with illegal immigration...
/obsessive much?
12
posted on
07/27/2007 7:26:35 AM PDT
by
SubGeniusX
($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
To: basil
“What I find a bit scary is that 3 Justices voted the other way!”
.....hey, it’s California......that such a good ruling could come from the LEFT coast at all is amazing.....
13
posted on
07/27/2007 7:26:44 AM PDT
by
Taiku
To: SubGeniusX
The seizure law was originally meant for drug dealers when the drug were seized in the car. I have no problem with that. Trying to expand it into other areas is just plain wrong. I live in Mesquite Texas and was astounded when a Mesquite Police car passed in front of me, it was a Lincoln Escalade.
When I caught up with it it had a sign on the back window that read. “This is a drug dealers car, he’s in jail and we’re driving his car.”
14
posted on
07/27/2007 7:28:41 AM PDT
by
ontap
(Just another backstabbing conservative)
To: robertpaulsen
In a 4-3 opinion yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled illegal the city of Stockton's program to seize automobiles from motorists not convicted of any crime. Under the city's ordinance, police could impound the vehicle of anyone accused of using it "to solicit an act of prostitution, or to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance." wondering your thoughts on this?
15
posted on
07/27/2007 7:31:42 AM PDT
by
SubGeniusX
($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
To: ontap
The seizure law was originally meant for drug dealers when the drug were seized in the car. I have no problem with that. I do. No conviction, no loss of property. It's the constitutional concept that matters, not the particular crime.
To: ontap
one of the major issues I have here is the “civil seizure” aspect and the lack of due process... even if it’s a dealer w/o a conviction they should not seize the property for the Govts. profit ...
17
posted on
07/27/2007 7:34:33 AM PDT
by
SubGeniusX
($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
To: ontap
Maybe a Lincoln Navigator or a Cadilac Escalade or, he could of got it one piece at a time, and didn’t cost him a dime.
18
posted on
07/27/2007 7:35:41 AM PDT
by
eastforker
(.308 SOCOM 16, hottest brand going.2350 FPS muzzle..M.. velocity)
To: antiRepublicrat
19
posted on
07/27/2007 7:38:03 AM PDT
by
SubGeniusX
($29.95 Guarantees Your Salvation!!! Or TRIPLE Your Money Back!!!)
To: antiRepublicrat
It is a controversial issue I agree and the point is well taken,but it has been around for years now I assume the ACLU types have given it a close eye and decided it would pass a challenge. Anything they can do to make life miserable for a drug dealer is good. I do however admit that it could and probably has been used inappropriately, sadly this is not unique to this law.
20
posted on
07/27/2007 7:45:29 AM PDT
by
ontap
(Just another backstabbing conservative)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson