A 2006 Illinois State law allowing state police to seize the personal property of repeat drunk driving offenders resulted in the seizure of a high performance car early this year. The result of this tale is a perfect example of the sort of corruption of principles that working for the state, any state, leads to.
Taken from it’s rightful owner was a 2006 Dodge Charger with a V-8 Hemi engine that speeds from zero to 60 MPH in five seconds and has a topped out speedometer reading of 165. The high-end cruiser had only 26,000 miles on it when the police forcefully took it from its owner.
Now, did the state police use this car as its most formidable speeder chaser? No. Did the state use it as a sneaky undercover care to catch offenders? Nope. Or, if the police didn’t want to use the car for law “enforcement,” did it get sold for a nice tidy profit to be funnel back to fund important police work? Not a chance.
No, instead of all that, the state assigned this incredibly powerful, luxury car to a perfunctory police bureaucrat, the director of the State Police Merit Board.
Granted it has become increasingly clear to police forces across the country that high performance vehicles do not make for good undercover cars. Many forces are no longer using seized vehicles like this Dodge as part of their law enforcement street fleet. Not only that, but many agencies are beginning to eliminate altogether high-speed chases because of horrific accidents that have killed innocents, so a high-speed car is of little use in that case.
Of course, there is always the option of selling the vehicle so that the sale price can go back into the budget of the police force. Naturally, this option was also not exercised.
Yes, instead of selling the thing or using it properly, some bureaucrat got assigned to him this luxury car as his personal plaything.
Whoever got the car should have immediately realized that he did not have a right to such a luxury at the cost of the people of the state. Whoever gave the car to this bureaucrat should similarly have realized that his actions were not justifiable. But, they had absolute power to do what ever they wanted and guess what? Their own comfort and political payoffs won out. Absolute power tending to corrupt absolutely, and all.
I’d rather see both summarily fired, their pensions and healthcare forfeited.
And this isn’t even to mention the propriety and constitutionality of stealing the personal property of the citizenry by a duly empowered state office. That is a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish.
So, once again what we see here is a perfect example of the assumed position of noblesse oblige that employees of the state assume for themselves at the expense of the Constitution and the people they are supposed to be serving. They can justify any amount of personal enrichment or ease created at the expense of the state by pretending they deserve it because of how “important” they are to us all.
It is said that government is a necessary evil with much emphasis placed on the necessary. All too often people forget the “evil” part. Stories like this don’t tend to reassure, either.
Dan McLaughlin
Moe Lane
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Asset forfeiture taken to its
LibRick (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 8:12AM EST (link)logical(?) crazy conclusion. No one spoke out about this 20 years ago when States started down this crazy road of prosecuting the property and not the criminal. Most thought it just gets drug dealers where it hurts. But, It soon became a lucrative proposition for the State. In California, operations were set up to randomly pull over individuals at roadside check points, busting the driver on misdemeanor pot charges and seizing (prosecuting) the vehicle.
The original intent was to auction off the vehicle to provide additional funding for law enforcement. But as you show, good intent and bureaucracy bakes a crappy cake.
I know it’s a “slippery slope” fallacy but it seems we’re not far from putting up our government bureaucrats in seized drug lord mansions. How’s that for an attractive job perk. Probably so attractive that the State starts looking for any infraction to take homes…maybe yours. Sound crazy? You see, they won’t be arresting you, they will be arresting your home.
this whole diary is insane.
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:36PM EST (link)First the outrage over someone driving drunk getting their pretty little car taken away… I mean give me a break drunk drivers kill 13,000 people per year. Drunk drivers should be lucky they are not automatically charged with attempted murder. I might feel a little more sympathy if he mentioned the outrages against people caught with small quantities of marijuana (deaths per year: 0)
But the level of fake outrage in this diary is a little to much for me, and if i go much further I am likely to end up banned.
Government action isn't supposed to enrich government officials
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:39PM EST (link)When it does, something is terribly, terribly wrong.
When government officials have incentive to steal, much like they do in Zimbabwe, then we have a problem that needs attention and fixing.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
oh dont get me wrong
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:41PM EST (link)asset forfeitures are wrong… horribly wrong, but to defend against the practice by citing DUI’s. Come on, people who drive drunk are the lowest of the low and deserve pretty much anything they get. At least defend a group of people that deserve it.
They may deserve plenty, yes...
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:42PM EST (link)But that doesn’t mean that we should support the state giving it to them. Somebody has to get worked up about it, and if Warner can, good for him, I say.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
maybe
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:50PM EST (link)I see this diary as doing more harm than good at addressing the situation of asset forfeiture. Those that have had friends die at the hands of a drunk driver, like myself, have little sympathy for these people. In fact I would be more than happy to take everything a drunk driver owns, and then throw him in jail for the rest of his life. I know that probably isn’t justice, but neither was having to attend a friends funeral at the age of 17.
Neil child welfare is the same way nt
mom2oneson (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 3:06PM EST (link)Those people get my blood boiling more than any other government group (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 3:07PM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
But I'm not going to threadjack :-) (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 3:08PM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
So not right!
spreadthered (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 4:16PM EST (link)Asset Forfeitures are very wrong! I have also lost friends as victims to DUI’s and when I was 22 (before cell phones) I was behind a drunk and watched as he turned a corner and ran down a pedestrian killing him at 2:30 in the morning. He was arrested and pled out so I never had to testify although I have lived with the image in my head and spent many nights wondering if I could have done something to prevent it. That said, I’m still NOT a supporter of asset Forfeitures for a few reasons! 1.) It is unconstitutional! 2.) Its a slippery slope. 3.) Gives police motivation to plant evidence. (Combination of 2 and 3 which scares me most, which is why 1 is so damn important!) 4.) It’s not going to stop habitual DUI offenders any more then taking away their license.
For the people that are defending this and feel a Drunk Driver deserves to have everything taken from him/her then ask yourself, is it okay to bend the constitution for that and not for say free choice of religion? You can’t have it both ways. You need to stop them from getting behind the wheel in the first place, not steal their cars from them.
If the government wants to be serious about stopping DUI then instead of legislating that all automobiles most get 32 mpg by 2010, change to it all vehicles have to come equipped with a breath analyzer ignition starter and older models have until then to get one installed. You have to blow before your car starts. We are already required to wear seat belts – why not require us to blow. Will some people still get around it the blow? Sure they will but you’ve still dropped the number of drunk drivers on the road to less then 1% over what’s on our roads currently!
Sorry for being so long winded!
two problems though.
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 4:43PM EST (link)The diary fails to mention if the asset forfeiture was due to civil suit against the property (which is truly a travesty of justice), or if it was due to criminal conviction and therefore was a penalty after conviction which is perfectly legal in my opinion.
the other unrelated question as far as the punishment of the DUI goes is how did said govt employee end up with the car. Should it have been auctioned off, or given to someone else… maybe, and that’s a valid argument to have I think.
But if said person was convicted of the DUI and as punishment had his car taken I say more power to the court.
Asset Forfeitures are also not fair!
spreadthered (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 5:29PM EST (link)We can agree to disagree but this entire asset forfeiture is not fair and not constitutional. It wasn’t a civil suit because the car was seized by police. Even with a judgement in a civil suit you can’t just take someone’s car for payment (unless you are the bank and they have not made the car payment but that’s another story)
For example:
Take Drunk Driver Sally – she’s had 2 DUI’s 1st she blew a .09 and the second .15. She’s a hard worker and finally splurged to buy herself a nice 2008 BMW 6 series convertible.
Then there is Dale – he’s going through a divorce and spending too much time at the local watering hole. He has 3 DUI’s the 1st he blew a .18 and the second a .23 and the 3rd a .21. Because he lost his first car the last time (which was a 1999 honda civic) he is now driving an old beat up pickup with the bumper held up with a coat hanger. Kelly’s blue book has it valued at $350.
Do you think that’s fair? No it’s not! You can’t even argue that! Make the Drunk Driving fine a flat $10,000 then they both have to pay the same amount for the same crime the committed but don’t dare make one person loose their $50,000+ vehicle verses a guy who only looses 2 old crappy cars. (not offense Honda)
I can’t believe a conservative could actually condone the seizure of any personal property by the government for any reason what so ever without just compensation.
punishment is not supposed to be fair
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 5:37PM EST (link)It’s supposed to keep you from repeating the offense. Personally I find it not fair that after multiple DUI’s both Dale and Sally still have a drivers license much less a car. Driving is a privilege not a right!
ill also add
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 5:42PM EST (link)I have nothing against large fines instead of taking property, but there is a HUGE difference between taking property due to suspicion of an illegal act (war on drugs) and taking property after being lawfully convicted of a crime.
You might not like it, it might not be fair, but it is certainly legal, and constitutional….
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
key words… due process.
What about excessive fines!
spreadthered (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 6:33PM EST (link)Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Continued....
spreadthered (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 6:37PM EST (link)If a DUI is a misdemeanor, which it is in my state, until your 3rd offense. Seizing a $26,000 car for a misdemeanor is a little excessive don’t you think?
Anyway – we both have a right to disagree.
I think punishments of a crime should be the same for all offenders of that crime.
Punishment that is in line with the offense.
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 9:07PM EST (link)You won’t find any argument from me about being able to take one’s property as punishment for a crime. If someone harms, steals or destroys another person or that person’s property (i.e. commits a crime against another), then obviously there should be just compensation (plus reasonable compensation above and beyond).
I suppose the underlying question is: Who is being harmed by someone driving with a certain (arbitrary) amount of alcohol in their bloodstream? Unless and until someone, sober or drunk, causes harm to another person or property through bad driving, what actual crime has been committed? I know that we have these DUI laws in place for public safety, but if we accept those, then there is no logical difference in accepting laws prohibiting driving while sleepy, driving while adjusting the radio, driving with a cell phone, driving while talking to another person, driving while in a heightened emotional state, etc. Wouldn’t it be more effective if these factors that increase the probability of an accident were handled by someone’s arrangement with their car insurance company, rather than being given the force of law which reduces our freedoms?
I know this is probably quite controversial, and I am not trying to trivialize the terrible losses that people have suffered at the hands of idiots who are clearly not in any condition to get behind the wheel. But follow this whole argument about confiscation of property, DUI, etc to its logical conclusion. I only present that notion that a crime only exists when a person violates another person’s private property. By this logic, drunk driving should only be criminalized if it results in harm to others. At that point, it is justifiable to confiscate that person’s property as compensation for his crime.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
My point exactly!
spreadthered (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 6:23PM EST (link)“Personally I find it not fair that after multiple DUI’s both Dale and Sally still have a drivers license much less a car. Driving is a privilege not a right!”
You are absolutely right, driving IS a privilege but protection of your personal property against government seizure IS YOUR RIGHT! The constitution trumps!
You are sounding like the typical Liberal in that because Sally is rich and has a more expensive car she should pay more for the same crime Dale also committed. Are you saying if rich people commit crimes, they should pay more to the government for the same crime whether it’s a higher fine or more time in jail?
That doesn’t fly buddy and you know it. It doesn’t take away from the fact that they shouldn’t be driving in the first place but if fining them isn’t working then the government should be doing something else! Why not make ALL DUI’s, even first offenses, mandatory sentencing plus a fine?
Any person that gets behind the wheel drunk makes me sick! I am not going to argue that! Should they be charged with attempted murder instead of DUI – I would be more in favor of that then seizing their cars, at least both suffer the same punishment! Multiple DUI offense’s is a failure of the system and it won’t be solved by illegally seizing their cars.
you know...
dave_in_atl (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 6:37PM EST (link)You point is a reasonable one to make, and for the most part we are not very far apart in our opinions. I will say this though I wish you had not jumped into making personal attacks accusing me of sounding like a liberal. I figure it was habit with all the trolls that are out there and not take offense, but I just wanted to let you know it is a very easy way to put someone off that generally agrees with you.
We can both agree that there are generally better punishments for a crime such as DUI than asset forfeitures, and the same can be said about most other crimes as well. The part were we disagree is on the legality of it. With that I will just leave you with a piece of our bill of rights….
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
Too bad due process NEVER happens!
spreadthered (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 7:31PM EST (link)This on the Illinois law on Asset Forfeiture:
“Moreover, the statute does not require that the vehicle owner be convicted of the underlying offense involving the vehicle as a prerequisite to upholding a forfeiture proceeding.24″
So I really hate to burst your bubble but it’s looking like they are not even allowed due process of law! It IS in fact a violation of the 5th amendment.
And it gets worse, say you lend your car to a friend and he drinks and gets pulled over good luck getting your care back, you have to fight for it. Your son or daughter borrow your car and goes on a drinking joy ride – guess what – good luck getting your car back!
When a car is seized, anyone on the title is notified within 15 days. If a leinholder is on the title, even the lienholders has 20 days to file an answer setting forth their security interest along with averments that they had no knowledge the vehicle would be used to commit any offense. Lienholders also routinely file a petition seeking return of the vehicle pursuant to their security interest.
This is a VERY slippery slope…..no due process required….
Gang of Thieves
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 9:30AM EST (link)“And this isn’t even to mention the propriety and constitutionality of stealing the personal property of the citizenry by a duly empowered state office. That is a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish.”
This is the core of the issue, even more important that what this parasite-bureaucrat does with the car. Even if the state sold the vehicle and gave the money to children with cancer, it is still stealing. I often wonder why we condemn stealing when it is done by individuals, but when the state steals our property and wealth we are more tolerant with it. Theft is theft.
It seems to me that if you are going to have laws against drunk driving, then violation of those law should center around the offender’s access to the roads, not the confiscation of their property. The owner of a road (in this case, the state) can allow or prevent individuals from using them if they violate certain terms of use.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Practically every police agency in the Country
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 9:43AM EST (link)engages in the asset forfeiture program and practically every police agency in the Country allows at least the officers to take cars home. In the unionized states, cops and firefighters are among the most pampered and best paid employees. Cop management is almost exclusively former cops so they expect all the cop perks with sprinkles and cherries. It only got worse after 9-11 when they all got halos and became “heroes.” It’s hard to say no to a hero with a halo no matter how extreme the demand. Every police and fire employer in the Country is still paying for 9-11. Take home cars and cars for managers had to be authorized and paid for by some elected body, so I guess the good people of Illinois are OK with this. Likewise, asset forfeiture isn’t just some policy promulgated by avaricious bureaucrats, some elected legislative body had to enact it.
And I really wouldn’t consider a Charger a luxury car although you can deck one out pretty well. With the hemi, it is a fast car, but the trim and fitment ranges from just above taxicab up towards semi-luxurious, most of them tending more towards taxicab. That’s one of the things Chrysler got very wrong in its Daimler days; the flagship Chrysler 300 went from being exclusively a very well equipped near-luxury car to being out there as a totally stripped model as well. They did the same thing with the Charger; no brand exclusivity except for the Hemi, which was only available in the Charger and 300, and they even polluted that by offering it in the trucks.
You always paint with a very broad brush when you talk about public employees. It is hard to be corrupt as a public employee unless you have procurement authority or head a program. Most public employees are honest people plodding through their day being supervised and managed by politically appointed idiots. I always knew that every appointee I was sentenced to work for would make me happy at least one time; I was going to their going away party. The only reason I took an appointment as I neared retirement age was that becoming the boss meant there was one less idiot in my chain of command. You use an example from the notoriously corrupt State of Illinois and the guy was a director of a program which almost certainly makes him a political appointee. A political appointee’s actions in a notoriously corrupt state is hardly the basis for your conclusions extending to all public employees.
In Vino Veritas
So what?!?
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 10:02AM EST (link)“A political appointee’s actions in a notoriously corrupt state is hardly the basis for your conclusions extending to all public employees.”
On the contrary, this is an illustration of the logical conclusion of a policy in which an agency of the state has the authority to confiscate private property from individuals. This is not a matter of have the “right” or “wrong” people administering the program. Man is a fallen creature, and putting even some of the most saintly individuals into a system that allows for abuses like this will inevitably lead to such abuses. The solution is not getting the “right people” to run this program in corrupt Illinois, it is a principled rejection of illicit laws that violate persons property rights. A man should be secure in his person and property unless he violates the person or property of another. That is the proper role of government, not to expropriate for the people because some bureaucrat thinks he is justified in doing so.
And who cares if this program was enacted by the legislative branch of government? If the same body voted 51%-49% that people driving red cars pose more of a risk to people on the road and therefore the state can confiscate all red cars found driving on the road, wouldn’t that be wrong?
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Here's what, Jim:
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 11:22AM EST (link)Asset forfeiture after due process is perfectly constitutional and a valuable law enforcement tool. I don’t like it for DWI, but not because of an objection to forfeiture per se but because the very low BAC forced on states by the federal government has now made DWI into a cash cow for state and local government. At .08 a couple of average body weight can’t have a bottle of wine with dinner and drive legally afterwards, so the cops just lay in wait. Makes a lot of money for the government and the cops don’t have to do any of that dangerous stuff that might interfere with their retirement plans. In any event, forfeiture after due process is not unconstitutional and had to have been enacted by an elected body; that’s how this republican democracy stuff works.
To the rest of it, you’re looking at the stuff of corrupt appointees; average, production level employees have trouble getting their mileage claims paid when they have to use their personal vehicle for government business. Government business that the government is too cheap to buy cars for or to allow the employee to rent. The typical public employee is never going to see the inside of a goverment owned vehicle and certainly isn’t going to be driving one home. In my State, the only “executive” vehicle is for the Governor and she rarely uses it. Beyond that, only cops and other people with law enforcement authority who are on 24 hour call have take home vehicles and there are strict limits on their allowable usage and some fairly serious tax implications for having them as well unless they’re fully equipped police vehicles. I think that system is pretty universal except in the Bluest states and cities, where what you have depends entirely on who you know.
Most governments are pretty austere about these sorts of perks for public employees, especially in agencies that use state and local funds. Federal money is not real money, so federally funded agencies tend to be much more free wheeling with money.
In Vino Veritas
Can a legislative body...
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 9:14PM EST (link)…overrule natural law?
“In any event, forfeiture after due process is not unconstitutional and had to have been enacted by an elected body; that’s how this republican democracy stuff works.”
So if the legislature enacts a law that says that red cars are dangerous and all red cars should be confiscated, does that meet your criteria? Or is there a higher law at work, namely a person’s inalienable right to his own person and property?
I guess I am of the opinion that the purpose for laws is to protect people and their property from violations of others. This is why I am more and more skeptical of the right of the state to prosecute so-called victimless crimes.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Stupid example.
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 9:29PM EST (link)First of all, a state legislature could very well pass such legislation and the governor could sign it into law. And the police would enforce it (especially if the municipalities got to keep the cash from the confiscation and sale).
At the first instance, the state would be taken to court, an injunction would be granted and the confiscations would stop until the matter had been adjudicated. I would also expect the owner of the initial confiscation would get his car back until the court made a finding.
You’ve gotta do better than that.
God, a little knowledge is dangerous.
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 9:47PM EST (link)The inalienable right is not to the life, liberty, or property/happiness, the inalienable right is not to be deprived of those things except by due process of law. So, yes, absent the equal protection provisions in the way some interpret the 14th Am., a legislature could outlaw red cars and take them. That’s where the hard part is; most conservatives and libertarians really don’t like expansive interpretations of equal protection, but it takes those expansive interpretations to thwart the will of the majority in arguably Constitutionally protected areas.
In Vino Veritas
"Natural Law" Art
David Hinz (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 9:58PM EST (link)entitles all of us to Pontiacs. Now GM is discontinuing the Pontiac line, thereby violating natural law.
:-0
The Minority Report — The HinzSight Report — TMRB.tv — MFOB “Miss Tagart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It’s resentment of another man’s achievement.”
Maybe we're talking past each other...
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 10:00PM EST (link)…but I am simply trying to present the notion that just because some legislative body passes some kind of law, it does not make the law just. I do not subscribe to legal positivism, in that legislators and judges can decide that law consists of whatever they want (whatever a judge decides, whatever 51% decides, etc). If statutes and law violate natural law (i.e. right to life, liberty, property), then those laws are unjust and invalid.
Consequently, I do not see how the state confiscating property from the people can be justified under any “law.” I believe it makes more sense to confiscate property as compensation for crimes committed against other individuals, but not some vague “crime against the state.” That is all I am trying to say, perhaps I was not being clear.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
There is no such thing as "natural law" in relation to
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 10:23PM EST (link)the governance of the United States of America or the several States. Nothing.
We are governed at the federal and state level by the US Constitution and it’s interpretation by the Judiciary. That is also the case with the various states, their Constitutions and Judiciary. The concept of “just” is not simply undefined in law, it’s non-existent. What does matter is “legal” and that is defined by the Judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the legislation in question.
You were being perfectly clear. That’s not your problem. That you are clueless, however, IS your problem.
Then do you reject...
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 10:54PM EST (link)…the Declaration of Independence? That silly document that talks about our inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Sorry, but that trumps any legislature, judiciary, etc. It is absurd to think that one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government has the exclusive privilege to interpret the power of….the federal government. What of the Jefferson and Madison’s contention that states have ultimate authority to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional (The Principles of ’98)? What of the long tradition of jury nullification, by which a jury has say not only on whether a law was broken, but also whether the law in question is just (a true empowerment of the people to reject unjust laws)?
If our system of laws (including the US Constitution) are not founded upon man’s inalienable rights, then they are just the imposition of raw force of one group by another. I honestly don’t understand on what legal foundation you are arguing. I do not recognize it as anything that resembles the system instituted by our founding fathers.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Yes. I absolutely reject the Declaration of Independence
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 10:59PM EST (link)as a basis for law in our Constitutional Republic. I also reject the Bible on the same grounds. I also reject European law on the same grounds.
Our system of laws is defined in the Constitution. Period. You want to use some other system of laws you better have an army. A big one.
And there you have it.
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 11:10PM EST (link)I rest my case.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Oh, and BTW, you and people like Bill Ayres would get along famously.
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 11:00PM EST (link)Your opinion of how laws should be made are exactly the same. Maybe a different result, but you use the same sausage grinder.
Sorry, Jim, we're a positivist law state.
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 10:40PM EST (link)You can have some good arguments about codified law v. common law, but in this Country, there WILL be a law or government can take no action.
Maybe we have a different understanding of positivism. I’m not talking about the German/totalitarian/statism “that which is not permitted is prohibited.” I’m taking about codified law. “Natural” law that goes beyond statutory law gets you revolutions and civil wars. The Declaration of Independence is an expression of natural law, even though based on English Common Law. Anti-slavery in the US was based on natural or “higher” law; the statutory law countenanced it. That cost about 600,000 dead and untold property loss. The market value of the slaves alone in 1860 dollars was some 4 Billion with a B dollars; that’s a chunk of change in today’s dollars, almost up in Obama numbers. I kinda like my laws written down; it saves resort to more violent means to settle disputes.
In Vino Veritas
You are so nice.
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 10:43PM EST (link)What do mean you don’t play well with others…
I'm a good fences make good neighbors kind of guy.
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 10:47PM EST (link)Or good contracts make peaceful relations. Or big guns make peaceful relations. That kind of stuff. I really like to be a nice guy, but if people won’t let me, I can be a real SOB. As you said in another post, there really isn’t time for payback and all that stuff; if you see it coming, strike first.
In Vino Veritas
Down with legal positivism!
Jim Sunday, May 3rd at 11:06PM EST (link)“Anti-slavery in the US was based on natural or “higher” law; the statutory law countenanced it. That cost about 600,000 dead and untold property loss.”
Respectfully, I do not buy the contention that a bloody war in which so many people lost their lives and property was necessary to end slavery. The civil was was fought to keep the south from seceding, not to end slavery. The end of slavery was merely a result of the war, not the cause. Every other country on the planet was able to end slavery peacefully and without massive bloodshed.
With respect to positivism vs. common law, I am not saying that we should not have laws written down. I am merely saying that those statutes that do exist need to be compatible with natural law, or else it is merely the raw, arbitrary use of force by one group over another.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Bye. nt
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 11:17PM EST (link)You're not capable of rational thought. nt
Achance (Diary) Monday, May 4th at 3:26AM EST (link)In Vino Veritas
Jim Monday, May 4th at 7:02AM EST (link)And I guess neither is Thomas Jefferson.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
F.A. Hayek
“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken
Change the subject a little bit
oklahomajon Sunday, May 3rd at 9:49AM EST (link)To change the subject a little bit but i dont dumb old country boy another that might a bit of police corrupation up and we all know what his name is so I wont mention it but the story of the police sergant that his fourth wife disappeared and his third wife died in a starnge case way is that person still out of jail can they not connect two and two or something just being swept under the rug
Just a couple points
Trunk Sunday, May 3rd at 9:59AM EST (link)First – please don’t use the words “high-end” and “luxury car” in the same sentence with the word “Dodge.”
Amendment V:
“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [Yes, I know I have abbreviated the 5th amendment to show only the point relevant to my discussion.]
I would assume, based on the above, that WITH due process of law – you may be deprived of your property (and your liberty or your life.) Now, by due process I mean that – if convicted – your punishment can be forfeiture of property. I do not mean to say that someone who is merely arrested on suspicion of drunk driving should have their car confiscated. These are two separate things and since no distinction was made in the story, I assume that the car was impounded and then seized upon the conviction of the drunk driver.
If you don’t believe that property can be taken as punishment for crimes – then I assume that you are campaigning to see all forms of fines eliminated from our justice system. Or does money not count as property?
My brother-in-law got a DUI. He plead guilty, and was fined and sentenced to community service and mandatory alcohol education. So, he lost both property and liberty after due process of law. I fail to see how this is a) unconstitutional or b) significantly different (except in scale) to the property loss in the diary.
If you don’t agree with your state’s laws regarding punishment for DUI – move to another state. FWIW – being imprisoned for even one year would be several times more costly (for me) than having my vehicle confiscated.
Now, the 2nd half of the story: giving confiscated property to a bureaucrat is certainly an outrage. Again, if this is your state – demand that your legislature change the law to require all confiscated property to be sold at auction for (whatever purpose you think is worthy.)
Government is best that governs least…
Trunk is right
thecoondawg (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 10:52AM EST (link)The forfeiture program is needed and it is extremely hard to sieze any property from offenders outside of R.I.C.O. convictions and even then there are deals to give the offender back portions of their property.
The biggest issue here is a civilian member of a “Board” getting a take home vehicle from the State. If this person needs a vehicle to travel the state to hear Merit or Promotional Boards then I’m sure the State of Illinois has fleet cars that can be checked out for such a trip or reimbursment for travel time per diem and such. Whats interesting is, On the State Merit Board website they state that they were formed to take polotics out of the promotional process. They just forgot to take polotics out of the “Perks for Board Members” process.
Well...
zroxx (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:20PM EST (link)The situation given by Todd isn’t the best example of asset forfeiture gone awry. That said I think his point is more on the subject of general corruption and failure within large, hierarchical organizations, particularly government entities, and for that it is a very good example.
But let’s talk about asset forfeiture, because it appears neither you nor trunk realize the lengths to which it is being abused. Better example:
Another:
So when trunk says, “I do not mean to say that someone who is merely arrested on suspicion of drunk driving should have their car confiscated.“, well, good for him and I agree, but that is exactly what has been happening in a number of cases – asset forfeiture without any conviction or sometimes even without charges.
One last example on that point, with an angle closer to Todd’s scenario:
As far as asset forfeiture when there is a conviction, what we ought to be asking when we filter these stories is whether justice is being served, or whether we’re creating unjust situations for citizens in serving the (revenue) needs of the state. For example:
So I’m not particularly against punishment, including fines, that are commensurate with the weight of the crime that a citizen is convected for. I’m dead set against punishment for mere suspicion, and in the above example, I can’t see how a fine that amounts to a $300,000 or more is anywhere is the realm of just punishment.
Evidently, we are failing to mete out reasonable justice in many cases. As Todd’s point correctly surmises, the chips are stacked against us when we design the system to motivate the state, and actors using state authority, more by the promise of revenue, rather than the pursuit of justice. It’s a formula for increased corruption in a system that already has other impetus for misbehavior. Possible solutions may include strictly limiting whatever monetary value of forfeiture can be allowed to correspond to any actual monetary fine that has been legislated for a given crime, rather that forfeiture of anything that could be remotely “connected” to the crime. Not to mention eliminating all seizure of assets until there is an actual conviction.
I understand and agree with your points...
Trunk Sunday, May 3rd at 3:27PM EST (link)But I wasn’t responding to the incidents you described, and the diary in question didn’t either.
This diary suggests that seizing property as punishment for crime after due process of law is unconstitutional. I assert that it may be distasteful and fraught with the potential for corruption, but it isn’t unconstitutional.
I get tired of arguing with liberals about the constitution – especially since many of them have never read it. That’s why I come here. I didn’t expect to find a diary full of hyperbole at Redstate.
If someone wants to start a separate diary about police seizing property based on suspicion of crime, then I will participate and I’ll be on your side.
Government is best that governs least…
I think the problem with this sort of asset forfeiture
Blue_Collar_Muse (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 11:42AM EST (link)as punishment for a crime is not the constitutionality of it. I agree that fines are as much an asset forfeiture as confiscation of property.
The problem, as I have always seen it, is ownership of the property in question and the actual seizure.
As I understand it, these seizures are made at the scene, not later, based on police data that is transmitted back to the officer or the circumstances of the arrest.
So the guy picking up a hooker or buying a bag of weed gets his car confiscated, sometimes being sent home on foot after promising to appear later. Or in this case, the guy has a long record of DUI infractions and so they confiscate the car.
The challenge is, the car the offender is in is confiscated. But it isn’t always his car. When it gets confiscated “on site”, it is someone ELSE who is being punished, not the offender. If the process was that the offender was arrested for a crime or violation and then later at his trial he was convicted and the sentence included taking his vehicle, that would be valid due process.
Passing a law allowing PDs to confiscate vehicles fails the “common sense” test as applied to reality. In a lawyer’s world, it might constitute due process. But not in any world ordinary citizens or businesses have to live in. What if it’s a rental? What if it’s borrowed from a neighbor or friend? What if the guy was in a company vehicle?
The potential for abuse approaches legendary status. It’s got all the same problems and all the same governmental perks as red light cameras. And all of this is true before we even get to the end of the saga and introduce what is being done with seized property.
I have no problem with seizure of assets or asset forfeiture as a punishment. But seizing the asset on the front end and sorting out the details later is not the way to do this. If it is, you are allowing the same cops (and I mean no disrespect here) who make asking you to surrender your 4th amendment rights to satisfy their curiosity a routine part of their questioning the power and authority to decide things that ought to be decided in a court of law. If they can’t even arrest me without making sure a host of other rights aren’t violated, how can they seize my property on an assumption of guilt without violating an entire other batch?
Blue Collar Muse
Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty! Complete Transparency!
I don't like it either and I don't know why it hasn't
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:06PM EST (link)been successfully challenged. I can see impounding a car if the driver is DUI just to keep him off the street for a few hours, assuming he can make bail and be free quickly, you still don’t want him driving again for a while. Anchorage has draconian impoundment laws for DUI and not only do they impound your vehicle on conviction, they charge you exhorbitant rent for their having stored it for you. It is clear than ANC just sees the whole thing as a cash cow. I used to have to go there all the time and I came to simply refuse to get a rental car because they just preyed on them for parking violations, DUI, and such. Their most insiduous one was the tiny little signs that said No Parking, 2am – 6am, M-W-F. If you aren’t real careful you say to yourself, “OK, it’s Tuesday, so I’m OK,” forgetting that at midnight, it is going to be Wednesday and when you come to get the car in the morning, it is going to be gone and it’s going to cost you a couple of hundred bucks to get it back. Don’t ask me how I know!
Anyway, I’m not at all troubled by asset forfeiture AFTER conviction and that’s the way most of them that I know of are. Forfieture or impoundment up front is at minimum a prescription for abuse and I don’t see why anything beyond some very temporary impoundment on public safety grounds wouldn’t be unconstitutional.
In Vino Veritas
Nice
Warner Todd Huston (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:03PM EST (link)Trunk said:
First – please don’t use the words “high-end” and “luxury car” in the same sentence with the word “Dodge.”
Great. Glad you can quibble over nothing and detract from the real issue at hand.
I don’t give a flying crap if it is a “luxury” car or not.
———-
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!
Then why did you say it was? nt
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:06PM EST (link)In Vino Veritas
I didn't
Warner Todd Huston (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:12PM EST (link)I didn’t
———-
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!
I assume you wrote the headline to your diary
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:26PM EST (link)in which you referred to it as a “luxury” car.
In Vino Veritas
Taking your ball and going home?
Trunk Sunday, May 3rd at 3:18PM EST (link)I managed to use one sentence for levity – please update your signature to reflect the fact that you have no sense of humor.
I did, in fact, write several paragraphs directly addressing the issue. If you chose to ignore those because you got your feelings hurt – so be it.
Government is best that governs least…
The Slide Downward?
spaceman_spiff Sunday, May 3rd at 11:15AM EST (link)This is a gross aberration of the basic law of our country. What is the next step? Confiscate of a person’s property before a trial? The after that taking, just pulling over people innocent of any wrong doing and taking what they own? This is how the police operate in Mexico.
The American Form of Government
Achance, you may want to rethink this sentence.
Tbone (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 11:21AM EST (link)“The only reason I took an appointment as I neared retirement age was that becoming the boss meant there was one less idiot in my chain of command.”
LOL.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Go die Tbone, you're still an idiot. nt
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 11:23AM EST (link)In Vino Veritas
I can't die, too tough from actually
Tbone (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 8:26PM EST (link)having to work for a living. However, government workers never retire and die. They just belatedly get declared legally dead when they start acting at home like they did at the office.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
... one less idiot ...
spaceman_spiff Sunday, May 3rd at 11:26AM EST (link)Really, when did you quit?
LOL
What's "confiscate" mean, Pa?
Paul_In_Houston Sunday, May 3rd at 12:17PM EST (link)“STEAL!!!”
(Jimmy Stewart, answering his son, in 1960′s movie “Shenandoah”.)
-
By the way, off topic site question.
zroxx (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:22PM EST (link)What the heck happened to being able to preview your own comments before posting? Am I missing something?
Gone the way of "innocent before proven guilty" -nt-
civil truth (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:28PM EST (link)The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
you mean "until" nt
redneck_hippie (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:51PM EST (link)Yikes...
zroxx (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 1:54PM EST (link)Albeit I can’t claim a constitutional right to preview, I nevertheless hope the privilege it will be reinstated upon appeal!
A DA friend of mine
David Hinz (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:34PM EST (link)bought at police auction a great “high end” mountain bike that was confiscated from a drug dealer. Why were they able to confiscate the bike? Because he used it to ride around on when making drug sales. Sucks to be him..
The state made money on the auction.
The Minority Report — The HinzSight Report — TMRB.tv — MFOB “Miss Tagart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It’s resentment of another man’s achievement.”
That case sound like appropriate punishment -nt-
civil truth (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:36PM EST (link)The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. -C.S. Lewis
http://www.gmsplace.com/
The storage yard behind the State Troopers'
Achance (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 12:46PM EST (link)office here is filled with fishing and hunting gear and confiscated boats and vehicles. If you’re convicted of violating the major fish and game laws here, everything you had with you is forfeited to the State. The State takes airplanes, boats, trucks, three and four wheelers, weapons, traps, even the camping gear. Then the State either uses it or auctions it. Most rural State Troopers are pilots and most of the “bush planes” are confiscated. Confiscated vehicles are usually auctioned but they keep some of them for the narcs and other undercover work. They had a pretty good program for when they confiscated some tricked out “kid car” in a drug bust. They would mark it conspicuosly as a a confiscated vehicle and give them to local police to patrol around the schools and in popular party areas and the like.
They get some from the feds, and I think some from their own drug busts, but most of the forfeiture here is from fish and game violations. The saw here is that if you ever decide to shoot your spouse, don’t miss and hit a moose out of season!
In Vino Veritas
Here in sunshine land, everything gets confiscated
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 1:15PM EST (link)in a drug deal, not so much for a DUI. The interesting offshoot is that if you call the Phoenix police and report “shots fired” or a body or a domestic dispute you’ll get old waiting for a response. Call in a drug deal and the whole force shows up because they get to auction the car and keep the cash. They also get to split up the drugs but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
taking property is wrong
toddworsham (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:15PM EST (link)no matter what in my opinion. It is the example I use when explaining to people that we DO NOT live in a democracy. If 51 percent of the people to take the other 49 percents money flat out, they cannot do it in America.
I have a problem with these legalized stealing programs for 1 reason, the same goal could be accomplished through fines. Rather than stealing a 50k car, fine the person 50k. At that point they’ll be so closely watched it would be difficult for them to pay the fine through illegal means and if they did the IRS would problably figure it out eventually. I know some people will say “well that just isnt the same as taking their property, taking their property is what sends the message to other would be criminals to not mess around if you want to keep your nice ride”
The fact is no one should be punished for a crime they havent been convicted of and many times these “stealing laws” are used against people who havent been formally convicted. That is wrong, I dont care if they are a crack dealer who targeted 10 year olds as his prime clientelle. Dont steal his car. Lock him and jail and throw away the key.
If you agree with property stealing think of this. Originally these laws were to be used against drug dealers. Now they are being used for those who violate game/fishing laws and DUI laws. Where will the slippery slope take us next? People who participate in protests critical of the reigning administration having their stuff taken? Probably not, atleast not in our lifetimes, but attendees of the 2050 tea party might want to conceal their identity to avoid rocking the boat to much.
**The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants**
–An OG American Patriot–
www.theotherworsham.blogspot.com
Money IS property
Trunk Sunday, May 3rd at 4:16PM EST (link)If you fine someone $50K, you are taking their property.
If money is not property, then our entire economic system is in jeopardy of collapse.
Government is best that governs least…
I Bet That Town or City Has a Deficit And
Swamp_Yankee (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 2:54PM EST (link)… spending cuts are needed, but the cops (and teachers, and firefighter, …) are all crying bloody murder. So the option will be presented to the public. Raise taxes or cut vital services.
search engine skilz
ignatov Sunday, May 3rd at 5:12PM EST (link)“Whoever got the car should have…”
What do you mean “whoever”? Help, Great Gazoogle!
“The Dodge Charger was seized in a 2007 traffic stop and “assigned” to Ronald Cooley, the head of the board responsible for hiring, firing and disciplining state troopers.”
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Merit-Boards-Muscle-Car-Ronald-Cooley.html
And here’s the IL gov directory with his contact info:
http://www.illinois.gov/teledirectory/pdfs/102people.pdf
Go get him, sTrike Force!
“All generalizations are false, including this one.” – Mark Twain
5 (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 5:16PM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
iggie
Warner Todd Huston (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 9:22PM EST (link)Uh, dude, I wasn’t speaking as if I DIDN’T know who got the car. I was speaking to a greater point. “Who ever” as a stand in for ANY government official in any situation.
———-
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!
The English Reformers and the Colonists struggled with this issue
olsmithie (Diary) Sunday, May 3rd at 9:56PM EST (link)Nothing new under the sun,
http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/forfeiture.html
Legal doesn’t necessarily mean morally right, though. I have major concerns about the whimsical way the government seizes private property today.
Regards