Posted on 04/06/2017 11:27:46 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Imagine if something like this happened to you.
You are away on a trip when you get word that your son was involved in a serious accident. You rush home and find out that he had taken your late-model SUV, driven it while drunk, and wrecked the vehicle beyond the point of repair. The dumb kid is all right, but facing charges for his criminal drunk driving.
But that’s not all. Because your vehicle was involved in the commission of a crime, it is subject to seizure under the state’s civil asset forfeiture law. Therefore, you stand to lose big because of your son’s action, even though you had nothing to do with it.
Across America, such cases happen with regularity. An innocent person’s property is somehow connected with a crime and then he or she must fight against an asset forfeiture system that’s rigged to make it hard to get the “guilty” property back.
Exactly such a case has arisen in Minnesota. Russell Briles was on vacation when his son took his 2013 GMC Terrain on a drunken ride and totaled it. The city’s police department seized the vehicle under Minnesota’s asset forfeiture statute, intending to pocket whatever value it could get from the wreck.
Briles, however, was not interested in his demolished GMC. He simply wanted to collect the insurance money. But the city attorney also wanted the insurance money and told the company to hold off paying Briles, implying that the funds belonged to the city. He did not, of course, inform Briles, who found out about this sleight of hand only after the 60-day deadline to file a complaint challenging the seizure had passed. That meant that he had lost his right under the statute to plead the “innocent owner” defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Sounds like New York city where I unfortunately grew up and escaped 5 years ago. I freakin’ hate that city with a passion, all run by Democraps who do EVERYTHING they possible can to steal your money with one scam after another,flooding your car with parking tickets or equipment violation tickets and then towing or should I say stealing your car with the excuse that you owe over $250 in tickets and then auctioning off your car. Or if you are stupid enough to own a business there, like a simple news stand, they send around the city “inspectors” who will fine the living crap out of you if your cash register is not at a certain height, if you do not have this displayed that way or this way. I remember they fined a hot dog vendor $1000 because he didn’t display his license fast enough when asked by one of the city brownshirts. $1000 dollar fine for a guy who probably makes $5 bucks an hour. Oh yeah and this is on top of the “rent” they have to pay the city. Yes, they actually pay the city “rent” to have their cart at a certain location.
“In total, the Inspector General reports the DEA seized $4.15 billion in cash since 2007, accounting for 80 percent of all Justice Department cash seizures. Those figures do not include other property, such as cars and electronics, which are favorite targets for seizure by law enforcement.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3539320/posts
I’m shocked they didnt try to work with the Judge. He has many ways to get even.
We are ruled by criminals.
Good question.
I’m using Ghostery. It takes about a minute, but the article comes up eventually.
Probably not if he was willing to press charges for auto theft. I hate asset forfeiture, and the idea of not notifying the man of the seizure was wrong, but if the son legally had the car, then it's subject to the same laws as if the man himself had crashed it.
What if you don’t want to sell?!?!!?
This is a poorly written article that leaves a lot of information out.
First the son did take the car without permission, He got drunk, was involved in a police chase and totaled the car as a result of the chase.
Apparently, Minnesota has a law that allows civil forfeiture of vehicles involved in DUI as a deterrent to said DUI.
The owner of the vehicle was notified via CERTIFIED MAIL of the intent to forfeiture the auto and was advised he had 60 days to file an “innocent owner” affirmative defense.
He ignored the letter.
The City attorney advised his insurance company (Progressive) not to pay out the claim as the vehicle was subject to forfeiture and the insurance money may be considered as part of the claim.
The City went to Court and filed for forfeiture of the insurance money under another statute.
The Court agreed. The owner appealed the decision and only then raised the “innocent owner” defense well after the 60 day window had closed.
Court ruled in City’s favor, owner appealed and the Appellant court upheld in part and reversed in part. It upheld the original forfeiture of the vehicle pursuant to the statute because notification was made and no party having an interest in the vehicle raised an objection (this under the forfeiture statute of the DUI law)
The Court reversed the city’s claim to the insurance money as the statute says the forfeiture only extends to the vehicle and any interest in the vehicle. The insurance money was not a “part of” the vehicle and was not subject to forfeiture.
If you do a Google search of the owner you can read the Appeals Court decision. It is much more detailed than what the article puts forward.
To be sure, it looks like the City attorney was getting “creative” with some aspects of the statute. But had the owner responded to the Certified letter and asserted his innocent owner rights, this would be a moot point.
but if the son legally had the car, then it’s subject to the same laws as if the man himself had crashed it.
But if the son took it without permission (assuming his father wouldn’t given him permission if he was drunk, what’s the difference?
“He ignored the letter.”
Thanks for your explanation-——makes things a tad clearer for me.
I wonder why on earth he ignored the letter.
Stupid decision.
.
If eminent domain was dependent on the merit of willingness to sell, we would not have interstate highways, state highways, most metro airports or the countrys’ rail roads.
Say what you will....but E.M. has been recklessly used...in the past.
That could be, but, without it we would still be some shithole 3rd world country.
>>Civil asset forfeiture in my opinion breaks the “social contract” and thus falls under the list of things that I consider justifies withdrawing the consent to be governed.
***********************************************************
Agreed. They spy on us and steal our stuff, among many other abuses. A long train of abuses.
The People have good cause to now fear their gov’t. That is tyranny.
When were we that?
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.