Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Florida: City loses appeal on confiscated cars
Miami Herald ^ | Feb 5, 2004

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.


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 last
To: PBRSTREETGANG
Propositioning a prostitute driving your wife's car?

No! not wife's car, girlfriend's car - I don't plan to marry...

You know what I mean

81 posted on 02/06/2004 10:18:57 AM PST by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The asset forfeiture laws were changed.

Source please.

82 posted on 02/06/2004 10:32:44 AM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Asset forfeiture is a 4th amendment issue, not the 5th.

Both the 4th and 5th apply to forfeiture:

Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V:,br> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But what does it matter? We could have two amendments or twenty, government will ignore them all the same.

83 posted on 02/06/2004 10:36:13 AM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: NativeSon
No! not wife's car, girlfriend's car...

Thank goodness! (I was worried there for a second.)

84 posted on 02/06/2004 10:49:53 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
The ACLU doesn't like asset forfeiture .... unless the assets are forfeited to anything but the local authorities. To wit:

ST. LOUIS--"A measure to reform Missouri's Civil Asset Forfeiture Act (CAFA) to ensure that police departments deposit seized assets into a public education fund, as required by the Missouri Constitution, will be signed into law today by Governor Bob Holden in Jefferson City."

"The American Civil Liberties Union, which has criticized asset forfeiture laws as a “license to steal,” called passage of the reform measure “a victory for all Missourians.”
-- aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=7267&c=51

Back to your point. The property is seized under the 4th amendment and it's constitutional. If the ACLU wishes to fight this seizure by saying it violates the Due Process clause of the 5th amendment (or the Excessive Bail clause of the 8th amendment), they're welcome to try.

BTW, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 addressed and corrected a lot of problems with federal asset forfeiture. Of course, the states are free to write their own.

85 posted on 02/06/2004 11:11:57 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
They are not being deprived of property -- they're being deprived of the use of property until the case is settled. Big difference. But even that's changed with the new federal regulations.

The new asset forfeiture regulations are found here. A good summary of the changes are found here in PART II, about half-way down. Read to the end. It should address your concerns.

86 posted on 02/06/2004 11:23:45 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: freeeee; robertpaulsen
googling Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000
87 posted on 02/06/2004 11:24:12 AM PST by an amused spectator (articulating AAS' thoughts on FR since 1997)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Thank you both for the links. It appears I have some reading to do.
88 posted on 02/06/2004 11:41:46 AM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: freeeee; an amused spectator
Keep in mind that these are the federal regulations on asset forfeiture. Each state still has their own.
89 posted on 02/07/2004 8:20:50 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson