So this upsets you? What about people being arrested, having their freedom taken away, and being thrown in jail until a trial is scheduled? Isn't that worse? Happens all the time.
The car was part of the crime -- if the guy were walking down the street and solicited a prostitute he wouldn't have his car seized. And that's another thing. The car is held, pending disposition of the case. The state of Florida doesn't take possession without due process. Ease up.
But you don't want this to be a civil matter anymore. Well, looks like you'll get your wish. Now the guy will have to go through a hassle, get a lawyer, go to court, pay a fine (and I hope to God it's at least $1000.), pay court costs, and now it goes on his record. Oh goody.
You robertpaulsen keep repeating an incorrect description of the Miami ordinance.
The paying of the $1000 impounding fee (and towing fee and storage fee) does not free the court system from dealing with the prostitution charge.
The accused person still has to go to court whether he was using a car or just walking down street when he was arrested by the police.
Repeating a lie 1000 times does not make it true.
Yes. The Constitution says due process must be had before anyone can be deprived of property. Yet probable cause, a much lower standard absent the trial or conviction necessary for due process is used instead. Even worse is the mindset that the plain meaning of the Constitution can be ignored. That didn't begin or end with forfeiture cases.
What about people being arrested, having their freedom taken away, and being thrown in jail until a trial is scheduled?
Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
Amendment VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required..."
If someone is arrested and cannot make bail because the bail amount is excessive, and they are not given a speedy trial, then yes it is an outrage. That's why it was included in the Bill of Rights. Read it sometime. I'm opposed to every single thing it protects us against.
Isn't that worse? Happens all the time.
Yes, it's worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. It should be apparent I'm opposed to all constitutional violations.
The car was part of the crime
I see. It has a will of its own. Rob, a car is property. It's amazing I have to explain that to anyone. And the 5th Amendment says it cannot be taken without due process. Case closed!
if the guy were walking down the street and solicited a prostitute he wouldn't have his car seized
Exactly how do we know what he did? There has been no trial, so there is no evidence presented and no conviction. And he is innocent until proven guilty. Without due process all we have is the word of a man whose employer stands to make $1000 off taking the car. This obvious conflict of interest screams for a third party's oversight. And low and behold we have these things called "courts" for just such a thing.
The car is held, pending disposition of the case. The state of Florida doesn't take possession without due process.
More legalese. Here's a fact: If you have to pay $1000 for a car, it isn't really yours. The police own seized vehicles by every definition of the term. Weaselry and Clintonian euphamisms don't change that one bit.
Post #33:
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.), and upon conviction, he pays a fine, court costs, it goes on his record.
And in the post to which this one replies you write:
Now the guy will have to go through a hassle, get a lawyer, go to court, and if convicted, pay a fine (and I hope to God it's at least $1000.), pay court costs, and now it goes on his record.
It would seem that innocent until proven guilty isn't something you're familiar with.
Or maybe you are intentionally neglecting it.