3 ms·
I haven’t reviewed this case, but essentially it sounds like she needs to be charged as an accomplice in the driver’s crime. (Driving 118 mph drunk is def a big
by bredren 6y ago
I haven’t reviewed this case, but essentially it sounds like she needs to be charged as an accomplice in the driver’s crime. (Driving 118 mph drunk is def a big crime.)
But if the act was not pre-meditated, or somehow the result of a probable conspiracy the owner was a part of, the vehicle shouldn’t be seized.
The wrongness of this has nothing to do with this case, though. It is that there is any direct financial reward whatsoever to LE for civil seizures.
Incentive to seize property must be untethered from those whose job is to support order and reduce conflict.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThe driver wasn't drunk. He refused a breathalyzer (and presumably a field sobriety test) which is what every defense lawyer worth a crap will tell you to do (and there is a very good chance he was advised to do in the future by his lawyer when he received his first DUI). Because there was a solid 10yr when the public lost its minds about DUI the public treats anyone who is accused of DUI as though they don't have any rights so the police felt they could regularly abuse civil asset forfeiture against DUI defendants. They basically see it as a no-risk way to extract money the same as picking on drug dealers.