Judge Foils Highway Robbery Attempt (By Police)

Forbes ^ | April 6, 2017 | George Leef

[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.

[TalBlack]

This damned City Atty. is an example of someone in government who is NOT an American.

[taxcontrol]

Forbes does not allow browsers that have ad blockers

[apoliticalone]

This entire process of grabbing private property for the benefit of public servants must end. Eminent domain can be almost as bad.

[baltimorepoet]

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.

[Secret Agent Man]

This sh1t is why everyone needs to be against this. Its not constitutional and govt uses it as stealth revenue collection and then pulls this crap on top of it.

It is govt theft from citizens under color of law.

[Secret Agent Man]

Since scrotus effed up the ruling on eminent domain it can be used exactly like this.

[Two Kids' Dad]

Sue and demand a jury trial. No reasonable jury would allow such shady business to be rewarded. Demand return of all monies and all physical assets and demand an apology and significant punitive damages. Get the precedent set so they don’t try that garbage on someone else in the future.

[eastforker]

Eminent Domain does not take your property without paying the current market value and most times more than what it is worth.

[dsc]

“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 isn’t criminal misconduct?

[Unassuaged]

Yay! War on Drugs!

[Yo-Yo]

The blame rests squarely on the Supreme Court of the United States who have upheld these seizure laws as constitutional on several occasions.

Secondary blame rests with Congress for passing these asset forfeiture laws in the first place, and not repealing or amending them to require a due process hearing prior to seizure in the second place.

[chaosagent]

Does this mean that if it had been a total stranger who had taken the car, they still would have taken it away from him?

[heartwood]

I oppose any asset forfeiture without a trial. But isn’t the idea behind asset forfeiture that the property was obtained through the profits of crime, or that the property was being used to obtain the profits of crime?

How would drunk driving be a crime of profit?

Of course it wouldn’t. It’s just bandit-baron creep.

[yoe]

"Was the forfeiture of the GMC legal? The court of appeals said yes. The statute declares that the owner of a forfeited vehicle has 60 days to appeal and Briles had failed to do so. That’s the right application of the law and it’s not up to judges to waive provisions out of sympathy.">

The Law is The Law. Sympathy for sanctuary cities is allowing the law to be broken...as never before, those cities need to obey the law to protect legal citizens or fascism becomes the law, and the ripples from abuse are not pretty.

[FreedomPoster]

Yes, that city attorney should be looking for a new client. That’s the appropriate answer here, or one of the answers.

[Secret Agent Man]

True, but thats only a fraction of these cases.

[Mears]

If the son was 18 couldn’t this be considered a stolen car?

If a car WAS stolen by a stranger would this nonsense still apply?

I’m confused.

[apoliticalone]

Eminent domain may pay for the “market value” of the taken property, it does not pay for the loss of market value due to the actions of eminent domain which may be very significant.

The actions of taking seized property should be ended. Aside from that it should go into a trust fund that is dedicated to reducing all taxes, and not giving public servants raises.

[Garth Tater]

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.

The social contract is long gone - it's all personal now. Take what's mine and I take it back three times over. Unless you manage to piss me off and then it's ten.