State of Oklahoma vs. Four Radial Tires

[sgrizzle]

Apparently OSCN has it's flaws...

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=458083&db=Tulsa

[TeeDub]

No, that is how the courts handle seizures.

Property has no rights.

Here is another example from this article..
http://www.fear.org/ffjournal/$242,484.html

United States v. $242,484, 11th Cir. (2003) No, 01-16485, DC Docket No. 99-01259 CV-DMM
United States v. $506,231 in U.S. Currency, 125 F.3d 442, 453 (7th Cir. 1997)
United States v. $53,082.00 in U.S. Currency, 985 F.2d 245, 250 n.5 (6th Cir. 1993).

[cannon_fodder]

Yep.  If the state wants to seize something for itself it is State v. [asset name].  I've been involved in a couple of those.  Generally drug related criminal cases where they seize everything they can find and sell it off.

Drug laws are ineffective in every way.  They don't stop drug use.  They possibly make it more alluring and certainly more dangerous.  They direct the revenue from drugs to illicit persons.  And in spite of their revenue, they are still a huge net loser finance wise.

There has to be a better way...

[EricP]

lol...

ONE, MACINTOSH MAC PROGRAM , Defendant
ONE, REGRIGERATOR , Defendant

[Conan71]

I wonder if the rims were 24's?

[sauerkraut]

This goes on in all the states. It's a 1990's federal law~ upheld by the USSC about the taking of prop. and even money for no cause just a susp..[B)]

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

This goes on in all the states. It's a 1990's federal law~ upheld by the USSC about the taking of prop. and even money for no cause just a susp..[B)]

Cite that please.  I'm not saying no way, but I'm having doubts about the "no cause just a susp" part.

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

This goes on in all the states. It's a 1990's federal law~ upheld by the USSC about the taking of prop. and even money for no cause just a susp..[B)]

Cite that please.  I'm not saying no way, but I'm having doubts about the "no cause just a susp" part.

From my article, apparently that used to be the way...

Worthless "War on Drugs" screwed everything up.

In an opinion by Chief Judge Edmondson, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a $242,484 forfeiture order and instructed the trial court to enter a judgment for the claimant. The appellate court held that "the government's case falls short of the probable cause line." Since the government failed to establish an adequate link between the money and any illegal drugs alleged in the forfeiture complaint, the claimant was not required to prove she had a legitimate source of the cash seized from her by the DEA.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


Cite that please.  I'm not saying no way, but I'm having doubts about the "no cause just a susp" part.

They have to have probable cause, which isn't a very high standard at all. Basically it's a set of facts which can be construed to support their theory.

They used to use the reasonable suspicion standard, which can amount to as little as "the person we took the money from was acting nervous"

Since they are prosecuting the property, the property itself gets no defense, so all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Wikipedia has a half-decent writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


Cite that please.  I'm not saying no way, but I'm having doubts about the "no cause just a susp" part.

They have to have probable cause, which isn't a very high standard at all. Basically it's a set of facts which can be construed to support their theory.

They used to use the reasonable suspicion standard, which can amount to as little as "the person we took the money from was acting nervous"

Since they are prosecuting the property, the property itself gets no defense, so all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Wikipedia has a half-decent writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

It is a civil action, which means probable cause, which is the same in all civil actions.

And the property can be represented by the owner and/or attorney, so it's not like nobody is representing the property.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


Cite that please.  I'm not saying no way, but I'm having doubts about the "no cause just a susp" part.

They have to have probable cause, which isn't a very high standard at all. Basically it's a set of facts which can be construed to support their theory.

They used to use the reasonable suspicion standard, which can amount to as little as "the person we took the money from was acting nervous"

Since they are prosecuting the property, the property itself gets no defense, so all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Wikipedia has a half-decent writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

But, according to the article, she won.  Isn't that what you wanted?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


It is a civil action, which means probable cause, which is the same in all civil actions.

And the property can be represented by the owner and/or attorney, so it's not like nobody is representing the property.

You're confusing probable cause and a preponderance of the evidence. The latter is the usual standard used in a civil trial.

What I want is the state not being able to take a person's property just because they suspect that it might have been used in a crime, even when the crime isn't prosecuted. Basically, I have a problem with civil forefeiture. I have no problem with criminal forefeiture.

Either that or public defenders should be assigned to the property, which is pretty ridiculous, but civil forefeiture is ridiculous to begin with. If you can't prove the crime, how on earth can you justify taking the property? (Even worse is when there are no charges brought in the first place, IMO)

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


It is a civil action, which means probable cause, which is the same in all civil actions.

And the property can be represented by the owner and/or attorney, so it's not like nobody is representing the property.

You're confusing probable cause and a preponderance of the evidence. The latter is the usual standard used in a civil trial.

What I want is the state not being able to take a person's property just because they suspect that it might have been used in a crime, even when the crime isn't prosecuted. Basically, I have a problem with civil forefeiture. I have no problem with criminal forefeiture.

Either that or public defenders should be assigned to the property, which is pretty ridiculous, but civil forefeiture is ridiculous to begin with. If you can't prove the crime, how on earth can you justify taking the property? (Even worse is when there are no charges brought in the first place, IMO)

I understand the difference between probably cause and preponderance of the evidence.  Probably cause comes into play in any decision to file a criminal and/or civil action.  Preponderance of the evidence is the requirement to 'win' in a civil matter, while beyond a reasonable doubt is the requirement for a conviction in a criminal matter.

But again, this person won her case.  I don't understand the problem.  Her carting around $250,000+ in cash stinking like dope in an airport and has no explanation certainly teeters on probably cause.  Is there any doubt she was moving drug money?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


But again, this person won her case.  I don't understand the problem.  Her carting around $250,000+ in cash stinking like dope in an airport and has no explanation certainly teeters on probably cause.  Is there any doubt she was moving drug money?

Yes. Do you have cash in your wallet? Chances are it has drug residue on it. What do you think the meth-heads and coke addicts use to snort it when they can't find a straw to cut up? [:O] (actually, what happens is transfer between bills in money counting machines..there are serious studies on this subject)

Until a few years ago, moving $250,000 around could just be someone's payroll.

For all I know, she sold some art to some person with the eccentricity level of Howard Hughes. It doesn't matter.

What bothers me is that she had to go to court and spend a bunch of money on attorneys to get money back from the government that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. Had she been found with drugs, it would be a different story entirely.

Just carting around $250,000, especially within the country, shouldn't be probable cause for anything. The drug dog alert was certainly PC to search the luggage in the first place, but not finding any drugs or other contraband, nor any actual connection to criminal activity, how can you justify taking someone's property?

Where I think we differ is that I don't think it's reasonable to require someone to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to recover their property, whereas you find it OK to take it as long as they have that chance, even if a large segment of the population would be effectively barred any recourse for financial reasons.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


But again, this person won her case.  I don't understand the problem.  Her carting around $250,000+ in cash stinking like dope in an airport and has no explanation certainly teeters on probably cause.  Is there any doubt she was moving drug money?

Yes. Do you have cash in your wallet? Chances are it has drug residue on it. What do you think the meth-heads and coke addicts use to snort it when they can't find a straw to cut up? [:O] (actually, what happens is transfer between bills in money counting machines..there are serious studies on this subject)

Until a few years ago, moving $250,000 around could just be someone's payroll.

For all I know, she sold some art to some person with the eccentricity level of Howard Hughes. It doesn't matter.

What bothers me is that she had to go to court and spend a bunch of money on attorneys to get money back from the government that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. Had she been found with drugs, it would be a different story entirely.

Just carting around $250,000, especially within the country, shouldn't be probable cause for anything. The drug dog alert was certainly PC to search the luggage in the first place, but not finding any drugs or other contraband, nor any actual connection to criminal activity, how can you justify taking someone's property?

Where I think we differ is that I don't think it's reasonable to require someone to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to recover their property, whereas you find it OK to take it as long as they have that chance, even if a large segment of the population would be effectively barred any recourse for financial reasons.

I'm confident more then just walking around with money that stunk like dope was taken into account prior to the decision to go after the money.  Prior arrests, employment, ......  all went into the decision.  Had she the means to earn that amount of money was probably a large factor.

A civil matter is never a sure win.  That is why a loser has the ability to appeal a verdict.  I'm confident the government, in this case, thought they had enough preponderance to go after the money in the first place, and obviously, courts agreed.  But she eventually won, which is our justice system.  She certainly has the right to counter sue for her fees.

Lets both agree that, short of reading the transcript of the trial, we are jumping to a conclusion without all the facts.

And moving more then $10K without notification to the government has been around for many, many years.