Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-23-2009, 09:07 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
minnesota supreme court broadens state tyranny

Minnesota Supreme Court: State Can Grab Cars from Innocent Owners

Quote:
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the right of police to confiscate vehicles from owners who have done nothing wrong.

Minn state law says "A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under this section if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law," Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.63 states. "...If a motor vehicle is owned jointly by two or more people, each owner's interest extends to the whole of the vehicle and is not subject to apportionment."

The 4-3 majority on the court, led by Justice Lorie Gildea, concluded that it is sufficient for one owner to be guilty to nullify the innocent owner defense. It did so by construing the statute to mean that "all owners" must be innocent in order to block forfeiture.
(total judicial tyranny by the majority here as the purposefully misinterpret this law)

Quote:
Justice Paul Anderson disagreed with the majority's interpretation, insisting that the ambiguous law should be read in a way limits, not broadens, state power.

"Given that the power to seize a person's property carries with it the potential for misuse, courts of justice must carefully scrutinize how the government exercises that power," Anderson wrote. "The context within which we must conduct our analysis is a disfavored forfeiture statute that we must strictly construe which means that if we have any doubt about the application of the statute, that doubt is to be resolved in favor of joint owner David Laase. Here, some initial doubt with respect to the application of section 169A.63 exists because nowhere does the statute provide that the innocent owner defense is not available to a non-offending joint owner such as David Laase."

The majority countered that it was the job of the legislature, not the courts, to limit the applicability of a law.
and one more supreme court fails the people.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 12:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
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.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 01:09 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
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.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 04:20 PM   #4 (permalink)
Insane
 
raging moderate's Avatar
 
Location: Whatever house my keys can get me into
hm, nice of them to give citizens yet another reason to fear and distrust police. nice going
__________________

These are the good old days...




formerly Murp0434
raging moderate is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 05:32 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 09:08 PM   #6 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
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.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 09:39 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
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.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 04:41 AM   #8 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan View Post
Right up until a police K-9 "alerts" on the cocaine contaminating the money in your pocket*
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
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.
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.
MSD is offline  
Old 12-25-2009, 10:49 AM   #9 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Alton, IL
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.
gondath is offline  
Old 12-26-2009, 06:52 AM   #10 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
and one more supreme court fails the people.
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.
-----------------------------------------------
indago is offline  
Old 12-26-2009, 05:57 PM   #11 (permalink)
Insane
 
savmesom11's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
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.
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.
__________________
* I do not believe that struggles are a sign of life falling apart, but rather a step of life falling into place. *
savmesom11 is offline  
 

Tags
broadens, court, minnesota, state, supreme, tyranny

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:37 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360