minnesota supreme court broadens state tyranny
 

Minnesota Supreme Court: State Can Grab Cars from Innocent Owners

(total judicial tyranny by the majority here as the purposefully misinterpret this law)

and one more supreme court fails the people.

How did the Minnesota Supreme Court fail the people? It is the job of the legislature, and not that of the courts, to place limits the applicability of a law.

But, since neither Mrs. O'Rights, nor myself, are likely to use either of our vehicles in the execution of a felony, this really doesn't affect me all that much. Call it one of the many benefits of being a law abiding citizen, I guess.

Right up until a police K-9 "alerts" on the cocaine contaminating the money in your pocket*. BAM, instant "drug crime" in which your vehicle was involved, which leads to instant asset forfeiture. Do not pass "go," do not collect $200.00, and don't even think about getting your car back. This used to be a favorite and infamous tactic among PDs in Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia. The vehicles would then either be auctioned to pay for that month's shortfall in speeding-ticket revenues, or simply kept by the department in question for use as a bait vehicle, patrol car, or undercover "G-ride."


*85-plus percent of all US banknotes are contaminated with detectable traces of cocaine.

hm, nice of them to give citizens yet another reason to fear and distrust police. nice going

sorry, good sir. I value and respect your opinions, but in this case I believe you are wrong. If it weren't the courts job to restrict the power of the legislature, then we have no checks and balances. Last time I looked, republican forms of government in this country were designed on checks and balances. If we didn't have them, the minnesota legislature could write laws that could use asset forfeiture on your property for not having your lawn mowed every week.

A car is a very expensive piece of property. Getting a driver's license is a privilege but the car itself is a person's personal propery.. its pretty wrong for them to be able to just simply take it from you. Its not like a car is something illegal like a sack of crack rocks.

This is especially troublesome in light of the recent scandals surrounding the Mpls-St. Paul metro area gang task force. It was disbanded following, among other things, the discovery of widespread abuses of property confiscation laws among its members.

Why anyone would be surprised that these laws would get abused is beyond me.

There really isn't enough residue for a drug dog to pick up in most cases. It's even simpler, whatever the dog does is a signal. Sits down? He's signaling. Barks? He's signaling. Sniffs then runs back to the officer? (No, of course he didn't just pull on the leash) H's signaling.
Eminent domain of "blighted" property. I think it was in Chicago, when the Kelo vs. New London case was in the news, that a residential neighborhood was declared blighted and seized for redevelopment. The reason? A survey by city engineers found that noise levels from traffic had increased since the homes were constructed. Eminent domain, except when the public benefit from public projects for purposes like necessary infrastructure development or national defense would be overwhelming, is nothing more than state sanctioned armed robbery.

What a wonderful interpretation of the law. I wonder what piece of property will be targeted next for government-sanctioned theft. I'm not supportive of car or house seizures for any reason but tax evasion. When drug task forces can fund themselves from seizures alone and still even turn a profit, you know there's something seriously wrong with the legal system.

I wrote this on the ACLU message board a few years back:
-----------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States has legitimized the taking, by the State of Michigan, property co-owned by an innocent party without compensation to that party. Mrs. Bennis co-owned an automobile, an eleven year old Pontiac sedan, with her husband, who drove the car to work. Unknown to Mrs. Bennis, Mr. Bennis used the car one evening to engage the services of a prostitute; and unknown to Mr. Bennis, the scene was being surveilled by the Detroit police under complaint by citizens that prostitution in the area had become a "public nuisance". Mr. Bennis was arrested, and the vehicle seized and sold, under the State forfeiture laws, as the "vessel" used in the commission of a crime. Mrs. Bennis contested the seizure and sale, declaring that she had a property interest in the car; she did not know that the vehicle would be used by her husband in such a manner; that she was being unduly punished for the crime of her husband.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Potter, delivering the opinion of the Court in the case of People v Hagadorn, stated: "The right of search and seizure did not exist at early common law, but crept into the law by imperceptible practice." Mr. Justice Joseph Bradley, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, declared: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

It is axiomatic that the innocent should not be punished. The Supreme Court of the United States, in upholding this seizure and forfeiture without compensation to an innocent co-owner, used, as an example of the power of seizure and sale under forfeiture laws, the Admiralty and Maritime laws of seizure and forfeiture of a sea-going vessel and its contraband. I had often found humor in the pleadings of some that the United States government, and State government, was directing its inland operations in Admiralty; and that the fringe on the flag in the United States courts, and many of the State courts, indicated that it was an Admiralty flag. Although the fringe on the flag of the United States does indicate Admiralty, and the federal courts do have Admiralty Jurisdiction over matters in Admiralty, I had always scoffed at the idea that the US government, or the State, would bring the Admiralty jurisdiction inland; until now.

Bringing Admiralty Jurisdiction inland was one of the complaints of the colonists against the British, who used the Writs of Assistance as a pretense for their right of Search and Seizure. The States Militia are growing stronger; and considering opinions like the latest from the Supreme Court, their presence is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Alexander Hamilton declared, in the Federalist No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..." This is why we have Article Two of the Bill of Rights.
-----------------------------------------------

And sadly that Gang Task force is the reason why funding is being cut to necessary task forces in MN like the Drug Task force....but even though we are smart enough to know that one bad apple does not spoil the bunch....citizens allow the media to spin this very story so many times that the bunch eventually does spoil....and we end up with the distrust spoken of earlier.

As for this particular story, I envy the responders who are adimate that their spouses would never put themselves in a position to lose their property - yet history tells us that people, even those we put on a pedastale are in fact, human and make mistakes. Those mistakes should NEVER be placed on the shoulders of an innocent person...a VICTIM in every sense of the word. This is one of the few times I tip my hat at our border state WI. I believe over there, each person, married or not, is responsible for their own credit and lawfulness and in my opinion, that is how it should be.