Posted on 02/05/2004 11:24:12 AM PST by george wythe
The city of Miami made a quick $1,000 when it arrested 79-year-old Sidney Wellman on a charge of propositioning a prostitute on Biscayne Boulevard four years ago.
That fine -- paid by Wellman to retrieve a confiscated car -- may soon prove costly to the city.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal on Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling that a 1997 Miami ordinance allowing police officers to confiscate vehicles of drivers committing crimes -- particularly buying drugs or soliciting prostitutes -- is invalid.
Circuit Court Judge Celeste Muir ruled in 2001 that the city could not impound a vehicle unless the driver is the sole owner.
Under the city law, drivers had to pay $1,000 in civil penalties to get their vehicles back. Those who couldn't come up with the money lost their vehicles, and the city eventually profited through their sale.
In a 16-page order, the appeals court agreed with the circuit court that in order for the city to confiscate the vehicle, the person driving the car must own it.
Between 1997 and 2001, more than 10,500 vehicles were impounded, and Miami collected almost $8.7 million. Wellman, who proved that the car was owned by his wife, paid the fine to retrieve the vehicle, then sued. He was never convicted of a crime.
Miami could petition for a rehearing or appeal. City Attorney Alejandro Vilarello could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
The husband was arrested for soliciting prostitution.
The wife was not arrested, was not present at the time of the arrest, and did not know that her husband was soliciting prostitutes.
The wife had to pay $1000 plus towing fees plus storage fees to retrieve her car, since she was the car owner.
In the first case filed by appellees, law enforcement impounded Danielle Wellman’s vehicle pursuant to the City’s ordinances after they arrested her husband, Sidney Wellman, for having operated the vehicle to solicit prostitution. The Wellmans then brought a class action suit against the City for a declaratory judgment to find that the ordinances were invalid, for injunctive relief, and for unjust enrichment.
But, but it's only for mafia crime lords and drug kingpins like Pablo Escovar! You don't like mafia crime lords and drug kingpins, do you??? Besides, it's For The Children(tm)! I think you must be a libertine. Only a crack smoking pagan would say such things. /s
Your rights don't apply if they are doing this in line with the other forfeiture laws. The case is technically against the property, which has no civil rights, and not against the person. Cases list like "People vs. 1996 Ford Bronco" or "People vs. $10,000."
"The city of Miami made a quick $1,000 when it arrested 79-year-old Sidney Wellman on a charge of propositioning a prostitute on Biscayne Boulevard four years ago".
Can you say VIAGRA?
I am deeply saddened....
Can you say VIAGRA?
I noticed that too, but I was trying to keep my comments on the PG level :-)
Ah yes, the 'fine print' of the Constitution where tortured 'logic' and legal backflips explain away the rights so clearly enumerated in plain English.
My theory of whey they even bother with such pathetic, thinly veiled feats of legalese is if they didn't and came right out in a rare moment of candidness and said "We simply don't care what the Constitution says", the legitimacy of their rule would be widely questioned, since the Constitution is the document that created their office to begin with.
So they'll pretend they are still bound by the Constitution, and we'll pretend this is a free country.
So is the car accused of soliciting the prostitute?
The car was accessory to solicitation.
Bad, naughty car.
I understand the article -- I'm just asking if this is any better, from a practical standpoint.
Now the guy will be arrested for soliciting prostitution, he goes to jail, makes bail. He has to go to court (tying up the judge, the courtroom, the prosector, the cop, etc.), he pays a fine, court costs, it goes on his record.
All this so george wythe can dot the i's and cross the t's in the legal system?
You're right. Why should the legal system of all things obey laws, especially such a worthless one as the 5th Amendment? The ends justify the means after all. And if an innocent man pays $1000, we'll just remember we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
He has to go to court (tying up the judge, the courtroom, the prosector, the cop, etc.
If they want to shovel out the ocean, they should expect their backs to get sore and a few blisters on their hands.
The car is accused of being used in a crime.
The $1000 fine was applied to Danielle, the owner of the car.
Whether her husband Sydney was convicted of solicitation and fined, given probation, or jail time will have no effect in the impounding of her vehicle.
Cops got probable cause, vehicle impounded, owner must pay the impounding fee.
The perp driving the car still has to go to court and pay all the legal penalties for his solicitation charge.
I posted a link to the opinion in case you want to know the facts.
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.