Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here | DONATE to FreeRepublic
Posted on 08/14/2013 11:12:22 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
“Keep in mind, in at least one state it is a felony to have a hidden compartment in your car.”
What if the ‘hidden compartment’ is OEM? We have a few different vehicles and I keep finding new compartments and pouches and etc. all over them!
There can be no argument for it without disregarding the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Again, you will have the opportunity to prove your innocence (and that of your vehicle) in the state of ohio thanks to good conservative john kasich. If you are lucky it will only cost you $15,000 to $20,000 in attorney's fees and loss of use of your vehicle...if they decide to give it back to you. Hope you have clear title to it. It would be a bummer to be making payments on a car sitting in a government impound yard or re-purposed for police work.
I give you an A+ for standing up for your rights.
More people need to do so.
Forfeiture laws have been a disaster for this country.
They have done a tremendous amount to undermine the rule of law.
If I were Great Lord High Poo-Bah Of Everything, I would pass a law stating specifying that police "requests" shall be presumed to be coercive unless the police can demonstrate that a decision to "voluntarily" comply could not plausibly have been a result of real or perceived coercion. For example, a motorist who has been stopped for a moving violation but has not been issued a ticket may reasonably believe that the decision of whether or not to issue the ticket may be influenced by the motorist's willingness to waive Constitutional liberties; consequently, any "voluntary" waiver of Fourth Amendment rights should be regarded as coerced. Further, if a cop misrepresents his ability to get a warrant, any "voluntary" waiver of Fourth Amendment rights in the supposed interest of saving time should be deemed to have been received fraudulently.
If juries who were examining evidence were also charged with judging the credibility and good faith of the people who produce it, and were instructed that evidence which is not gathered in good faith should not be construed in a fashion detrimental to defendant, I think that would offer cops a pretty strong incentive to avoid behaving in ways which might not be so patently illegal as to merit judicial rebuke, but are nonetheless sufficiently distasteful that jurors might balk at them. Judges are loath to strike evidence unless a search was patently unreasonable and could not have been done in good faith, but jurors might be more willing to consider not "Do I believe it might plausibly have been done in good faith", but "Do I believe it was done in good faith". Note that departments which have a history of harassing the public may find it hard to find jurors who trust them.
Anyone too lazy to give a clue about the posting isn’t going to get a click through from me. This was the sorriest excuse for a posted thread that I’ve ever seen.
Looks like the New Yorker has their own version of a blog pimp.
Responsibility2nd has it pegged.
Personally I thought it was intriguing enough to check out the link. Curiosity. The article was long, but very informative about an issue that had never occurred to me. The worst thing I encounter while driving is watching my speed through Hartford, WV. It’s a speed trap and everybody knows it, so we keep religiously to the 40 mph posted.
Now I will be sure to never carry cash while traveling (not that I ever have any to carry). If they ever search my car for contraband they will surely come off with a mighty miniscule bounty.
Sometimes they want the car.
Of course it is all Reagan's fault, and the bad actors hate Obama and are therefore racist, even if black themselves.
The New Yorker, gotta love it.
The government has very few responsibilities and “takings” for things that have nothing to do with their real duties should never be allowed.
Taking someones’ house to build a 7-Eleven might be “Constitutional” according to SCOTUS but its not if you are sane.
FR is enjoined from posting anything at all from the link. Even the link itself can’t have the name of the publication.
Perhaps you could pay JR’s legal fees and post the entire article next time?
Text is subject to copyright. Ideas aren’t. If one isn’t too lazy, one can summarize the story so that other FReepers have at least a hint as to subject matter.
Now give up on the practice of law before you hurt yourself.
The title itself conveyed the ideas in the article.
Perhaps you didn’t read ‘Asset Forfeiture’?
Maybe you thought it was a Justin Beiber article?
Perhaps you didn’t read ‘Asset Forfeiture’?
No, I didn't read 'Asset Forfeiture' because it isn't in the title. Maybe you should try again in the morning.
What does the term ‘Civil Forfeiture’ mean to you?
Justin Beiber?
Kardashian?
Or maybe ‘Civil Forfeiture’?
Nope, you can’t do any better in the morning. If it isn’t alcohol related, you probably ought to see a neurologist.
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.