- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
This might be the civil forfeiture case to end all civil forfeiture cases.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:05 pm
Heather Bitsillie drank four “hurricane drinks” and a few beers before driving south on San Mateo in a 2006 Kia Sorrento on April 1 and sideswiping a car, sending the Kia rolling into another lane and striking another vehicle, according to a criminal complaint. Albuquerque police arrived and arrested Bitsillie on aggravated drunken driving and other charges. They also seized the Kia under an ordinance that allows the city to take the vehicle used by anyone arrested on suspicion of DWI if they have been charged with drunken driving before, or anyone caught driving with a revoked license because of a DWI.
But there was a problem.
Claudeen Crank, an Albuquerque woman who said she has never heard of Bitsillie and has never been arrested for drunken driving, owned the small SUV. The day of the crash, Crank said she was on her way home from a vacation. The only person who had access to her SUV was a mechanic hired to work on it while she was away and she has no idea how the vehicle ended up in Bitsillie’s possession.
Still, Crank was faced with administrative, tow and storage fees, a round of negotiations with an assistant city attorney and police officer, and possibly a hearing in front of an administrative judge if she wanted her vehicle back. So what was created as a way to curb repeat drunken drivers has, in some cases, resulted in people without any record of drunken driving paying high fees and going weeks or months without their vehicles. She’s not alone
Earlier this month, the city scheduled 14 hearings in one week for owners whose vehicles were recently seized under the ordinance. Of those cases, 10 owners weren’t driving the car at the time it was seized. In some of those cases, the owners said the vehicles were stolen or taken by a relative without permission, according to city documents.
“Half the vehicles (seized) are not owned by the drunks we take them from,” said Stan Harada, the chief administrative hearing officer for the city.
LINK
But there was a problem.
Claudeen Crank, an Albuquerque woman who said she has never heard of Bitsillie and has never been arrested for drunken driving, owned the small SUV. The day of the crash, Crank said she was on her way home from a vacation. The only person who had access to her SUV was a mechanic hired to work on it while she was away and she has no idea how the vehicle ended up in Bitsillie’s possession.
Still, Crank was faced with administrative, tow and storage fees, a round of negotiations with an assistant city attorney and police officer, and possibly a hearing in front of an administrative judge if she wanted her vehicle back. So what was created as a way to curb repeat drunken drivers has, in some cases, resulted in people without any record of drunken driving paying high fees and going weeks or months without their vehicles. She’s not alone
Earlier this month, the city scheduled 14 hearings in one week for owners whose vehicles were recently seized under the ordinance. Of those cases, 10 owners weren’t driving the car at the time it was seized. In some of those cases, the owners said the vehicles were stolen or taken by a relative without permission, according to city documents.
“Half the vehicles (seized) are not owned by the drunks we take them from,” said Stan Harada, the chief administrative hearing officer for the city.
LINK
17
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:07 pm to Eurocat
Well isn't that just dandy
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:08 pm to Eurocat
quote:If it ended prosecutorial overreach that would be outstanding.
This might be the civil forfeiture case to end all civil forfeiture cases.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:10 pm to Eurocat
Civil forfeiture is a legal creation to allow government theft, and it does not curb bad behavior.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:15 pm to Eurocat
Sounds to me that the "spirit" of the law is to remove the vehicles of the people committing the crimes to punish and to prevent them from doing it again. It should be unlawful to remove other people's property when they, too, are victims of the same crime.
Government being government.
Government being government.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:19 pm to FooManChoo
How have these types of laws not been challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:22 pm to FooManChoo
No, that's what they tell you the purity of the law is for cover. All civil asset forfeiture laws have the fundamental spirit of making money for government,
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:26 pm to Eurocat
I thought the OP loved big government and good intentions? How is this not a great example of both?
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:34 pm to Eurocat
quote:
But Eric Locher, an assistant attorney for the city, said the city plans to continue to take vehicles under city ordinance after the law goes into effect.
I will never spend money or drive my personal vehicle in that city.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 10:57 pm to Robin Masters
I never said I loved big anything. I am just open to experimenting with new idea's and reject the idea of we can't do that because we have never done that.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:04 pm to Eurocat
You don't like big government?
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:18 pm to Eurocat
kinda like... " if we take away all the guns nobody will ever get robbed"
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:21 pm to Eurocat
You really don't understand why this happens? Holy shite. When these laws first came on the books, police and DAs had some discretion. But then lawyers got involved. Next thing you know, the police and DAs had to treat everyone the same. If you let one person off, for whatever reason, that could be used as the basis for a lawsuit.(You took my stuff, why didn't you take theirs 
) It's easier to take everyone's shite and have the ones that got fricked over sue, than it is to having to defend why you didn't follow the exact letter of the law.
) It's easier to take everyone's shite and have the ones that got fricked over sue, than it is to having to defend why you didn't follow the exact letter of the law. Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:21 pm to Eurocat
If you love civil forfeiture, you'll love the next 4 years with Jeff Sessions as AG. Thanks Trump!
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:21 pm to Eurocat
Heather Bitsillie, for your viewing pleasure.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:23 pm to Scoop
Not necessarily. It depends on the situation.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:57 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Of those cases, 10 owners weren’t driving the car at the time it was seized. In some of those cases, the owners said the vehicles were stolen or taken by a relative without permission
Some of these folks have more to worry about regarding a negligent entrustment civil suit by the injured 3rd party(s).
Posted on 12/24/16 at 12:09 am to Five0
I'm a pretty big crime control guy, but civil forfeiture is bullshite. The only case where I believe it is warranted and just is seizing cash and assets that are the product of an illegal enterprise such as drug money or money gained through fraud, such as illegal investment schemes. Even then, I think the government should have a burden to be able to "trace" the specific amount of money seized and not just seize everything the person has.
Posted on 12/24/16 at 12:32 am to TigernMS12
I agree with you. My above post was not about the merits or procedures for civil forfeiture. It was about liability threats. Losing the vehicle is potentially the smallest threat.
This post was edited on 12/24/16 at 12:56 am
Posted on 12/24/16 at 12:36 am to Eurocat
Nobody should ever have any legal property of theirs taken away by the government period.
Seize illegal property sure, but committing (or even worse simply being accused of) a crime does not mean you forfeit legal property.
Seize illegal property sure, but committing (or even worse simply being accused of) a crime does not mean you forfeit legal property.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News