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.
Sure. And so did the state of Florida. And until last Wednesday, they were acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
You have a problem with that? Or is the Constitution what you say it is, and that we don't need the courts -- just ask you?
Yeah, the State of Florida does too. That's the problem.
Rob, why don't you tell us what this really means:
Amendment V: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
The state of Florida does that? I don't suppose you have proof.
Of course you don't. You just make these flippant, unsupported statements because you think it's cool.
C'mon, back it up. Surely you had something in mind when you made the statement.
Whatever they say he did:
The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct
“If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him.”
-- The late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in a 1940 address to Justice Department lawyers.
See my post #66. ;-)
Maybe that should be up to the courts? That is, after all, their function.
The plain language of the Constitution is crystal clear. It was written for the average person to read and understand.
The court's legitimate function is to uphold the Constitution. Instead they have undermined it, and tell us that our rights aren't as clearly written.
Take for example this amendment:
Amendment V: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
This is self explanatory to even the most obtuse individual. But instead of honoring its unmistakable meaning, activist courts use 'probable cause' instead of due process.
This isn't a mistake made because of complicated legal theory. It's done for one reason only: The government finds the 5th Amendment cumbersome and inconvenient, and hasn't the willingness or ability to change it through amendment.
In case you hadn't noticed, one of the main purposes of this website is to end the tyranny of activist courts. And here you are, advocating an unmistakable case of activist rule. Maybe you're in the wrong place?
When I grow up I want to be like Sidney. execpt for the arrest part...
Didn't you read the article? They're making seizures without due process and a conviction. Forfeiture done in that manner operates on a presumption of guilt.
Propositioning a prostitute driving your wife's car?
And here you are, assuming that one who is simply explaining the process to closed-minded individuals is advocating a position one way or the other.
"activist courts use 'probable cause' instead of due process."
What does this silly phrase mean? Are you saying that the courts use, "Amendment V: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process probable cause of law..."
You're not making sense.
Didn't you read the article? That's all the recent ruling said -- they didn't say anything about "making seizures without due process and a conviction", just that the police weren't allowed to impound a car that wasn't registered to the suspect.
You just make things up to fit some agenda of yours. I'm done. Come back when you can support your statements.
Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying.
"The City of Miami enacted an ordinance which allows the police to seize and impound any motor vehicle that the police have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe has been used to facilitate crimes that were a threat to the health, safety and welfare of 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."
But why did they rule that way?
"Circuit Court Judge Celeste Muir ruled in 2001 that the city could not impound a vehicle unless the driver is the sole owner."
Not because of lack of due process. SCOTUS has ruled asset forfeiture on probable cause alone to be sufficient, in direct difiance of the 5th Amendment. That's why, in innumerable cases, if you're pulled over and have any significant amount of cash on you, the police can simply take it, even if they have no evidence of a crime, even if you are never charged, and even if you are charged and acquitted they don't have to give it back.
I know you already knew this, so why do you even ask?
The court simply ruled that the police could not seize an asset that didn't belong to the suspect. Geez, this isn't rocket science.
The asset forfeiture laws were changed. Get up to speed.
You might want to drop a line to the ACLU lawyer battalion and tell them they got it all wrong, rp:
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/drugpolicy/CivilAssetForfeiture.html
Must've been an SUV ";^)
We all know how evit "they" are.
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.