Because there is an economic incentive for the police to impound then sell vehicles. They may sell them and use the income as offesets for their budgets. They are literally stealing the property unless the owner has committed a crime. It is not illegal to loan your car to someone as long as you do not do so, knowing that it will be used in the commission of a crime because that is illegal. That is not the same as saying that it is illegal to loan a 'bad risk' or a sketchy person a car. Agents of the government cannot take your property and restrict your access to punish you, unless you do something against the law.
1) our police depts (all around the world) need to raise funds in any way they can. they're under-resourced. far better for those funds to come from criminals, than from the tax payer, no? 2) once again, if you're stupid enough to lend your car to someone inclined to crime, then you deserve everything you get. complaining when it goes bad is like complaining about getting caught (doing the crime).
Nothing is coming from a criminal. That would require a fine levied by the court at sentencing, after a conviction on a charge. I guess you are in favor of police taking from wallets of the people they stop and frisk to help reduce your tax burden. Or maybe the way for the police to keep taxpayer costs down is to raid the jewelry boxes of people, they arrest in their homes. Make the next post intelligent and worthy of a reply please. I want to have to think a little crank.
the proceeds or materials associated with the commission of crime should always be confiscated. in fact all worldly goods possessed by convicted criminals ought to be confiscated.
the question is whether you insist that a magistrate determine that a crime was in fact committed, and that it was committed by the accused after a trial, or whether you think those are details your police department is better able to discern without those encumbrances .
Laws like RICO will inevitably be used improperly. They should not exist. We can suffer a few drug/mob kingpins easier than we can suffer the govt confiscating w/e it wants.
Sounds like you would make a fine police state captain, without having to worry about little tedious things like due process and innocent until proven guilty.
on the contrary, this is about how incredibly easy it is to stay well away from any and all criminal people and criminal activity .. so that these negative encounters with police and law never enter our lives. most of us are able to do it without any effort whatsoever.
let's step back a bit ... you're now quibbling over courtroom stuff. how does one end up in a situation of suspicion in the first place?
Why would police ever have access to your wallet? I'd wager that not a single person in my current orbit (of any age), and that would include easily a hundred people, has ever had their wallet inspected by LE.
If the car is not owned by the son there is no legitimate theory why the government should be able to keep it.
LOL, I am quibbling over courtroom stuff? its not 'quibbling' if the police decide to take your property worth potentially thousands of dollars, when you have committed no crime and may not even be suspected of a crime yourself. Above thread I asked you to post replies that were serious enough to warrant my attention and interest. This does not qualify. you have one more chance. On this topic. Make me think a little.
Not interested in your orbit of friends or acquaintances. the wallet is in my house and there is a search warrant, or because I have been stopped and they aren't sure I gave them the right ID or told the truth. maybe they like to look in wallets to see how much is in there. Does it matter? I are under suspicion so I are detained or I are being searched and the there exists a wallet, and they have access. Is it theirs to 'impound' because I are 'suspicious' and suspicious people deserve to have their property impounded. . I am accepting for the purposes of this discusses that there is probable cause to detain or search me because I am 'suspicious' Now answer the question. Is it my fault that I am seen as suspicious, and do the police get to decide that my penalty is to lose my money or jewelry or car? Later we can get to that further step, where someone else is suspicious but has been loaned my car, my money or my jewelry.
A new tool given to them, ERAD! They can also rob your bank card, credit cards etc, Just " suspecting " you committed a crime somewhere or maybe sometime in your life, maybe you did something when you were a kid you deserve highway robbery. Sir , can I see your credit and bank cards please, don't need your drivers license just the cards.
Also, when you manage to easily avoid any unwanted LE attention for your lifetime, and so does everyone you know. I live in a more 'police-state-ish' nation than America (tight gun laws etc), and maintain the above.
Its not anyone's job or responsibility 'not to be suspicious to police' its their job not to break the law. That's not the same standard. We do not get to take property from suspicious people, and neither do local police. its that simple. if they have a case, they need to prove it in court.
the law can't function as we expect it to, if police cannot act on suspicions. once again, it's very very easy to avoid appearing 'suspicious', and to avoid associating with criminals and/or criminal behaviour.
Please reply to the question. Its not a citizen's responsibility or duty to 'not look Suspicious'. And you can't impose one. There is not statute to that affect, in any jurisdiction in this country and none would pass constitutional muster. Either you support the police taking property from citizens who have not been convicted of a crime or you do not. Which is it?
No one said it was a 'responsibility'. It's a choice. We know that police act on suspicions, therefore we choose not to be 'suspicious'. Besides 'responsibility' suggests that significant effort is required to do so. On the contrary, you have to make an effort to appear on their radar. But yes, I absolutely support police acting on suspicion - even when that includes impounding property of those under suspicion.
Tell me, how was the wife who lost her car to impounding because her husband borrowed it to pick up prostitutes supposed to "avoid associating with criminals and/or criminal behavior?" [This was the forfeiture case that made it to the Supreme Court. In one of Rehnquist's worst decisions he said the wife was given due process because the state legislature duly passed a law that said police could do that.]