4 ms·
>Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. No. A good fix is not one that continues to allow assets to be seized from peopl
by ubermonkey 6y ago
>Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare.
No. A good fix is not one that continues to allow assets to be seized from people not convicted of any crime that were not used in the commission of, or directly related to the proceeds of, that crime.
- loup-vaillant 6y agoIn this particular case, the "asset" (the car) was definitely used to commit a "crime" (drunk driving). Your suggestion, as it stands, looks like it wouldn't have prevented the forfeiture of this particular car. A simpler rule could be to not seize assets from people who aren't convicted (or accused of) any crime. Note that someone who lends their car for a bank robbery could still be charged with a crime if we can suspect they knew about the robbery.
- coldcode 6y agoIt's only a crime if you are convicted. No matter the circumstances being accused of something is not a crime. Seizing some property upon accusation and then returning it intact and unchanged if not convicted or no charges filed might be fine, but selling the car would not.
- loup-vaillant 6y agoThe article doesn't expand on it, but someone who was clocked at 118mph then refuses to take the breathalyzer… We can reasonably assume he was convicted of something. Most probably DIW, but there's also speeding and reckless driving. The real problem here is that the car they seized didn't belong to him.
- quag 6y agoThe article says that the DUI prosecution has been indefinitely delayed due to COVID. The case has not been heard, and there has not been a conviction, acquittal Or had the charges withdrawn.
- loup-vaillant 6y agoAh. I stand corrected, then. If the car wasn't just held, but sold during this period, that's even worse than I thought.