Confiscating Cars Upon Arrest; Constitutional?

[scot4538]

What is the name of your state? NJ

The City of Paterson in New Jersey was consfiscating cars which were used to pick up prostitutes. The cars were confiscated upon arrest, not conviction. This was challanged as unconsitutional.

Any idea about the status of that practice? Thanks.

[racer72]

Happens all the time for a wide variety of offenses. It is a legal process called negative reinforcement. Let everyone know that if you are caught violating prostitution laws, you lose your vehicle for a few days and you pay the towing. Remember, owning and driving motor vehicles is a privelige, not a right. The Constitution does not address priveliges. If you want an even more extreme example, get caught bringing drugs across the border from Canada or Mexico in a vehicle, one of the penalties is automatic forfeiture of the vehicle upon arrest. I have bought a number of nice vehicles from federal marshall's seizure auctions.

[justalayman]

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

I don;t see an initial arrest as "due process of law" that would allow the forfeiture of property. Also, since the auctions are actually "for the public use" as the funds are used to fund other police actions, this is contrary to that phrase as well. If the vehicles value was accepted in lieu of a cash payment equal to the value of the vehicle to be applied to fines or court costs, this would be a different story. As I have seen these laws applied, there is no compensation for the taking of the vehicles in any way. Especially in your national border scenario, without a conviction, there can be no legal permanent seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

as well, I don't see a warrant being issued to those johns either that would allow the seizure either. a warrant would relate to the fact that the car was an inherent part of the crime or evidence of the crime which it is neither.
The current laws which allow forfeiture of private property often fail to require the conviction of the charged. This is paramount to legalized theft. Many of the forfeiture laws are so broad in their scope that it is impossible for most to defend against the claims. It is often prohibitively expensive to do so in many cases as well so even if you are right, you lose just because it costs more to get the property back than it is worth.



So it is not a matter of privileges verses rights. These are all rights that are being abused and ignored. Property is being taken without due process or rightful compensation.

While it is a privilege to drive, it is a RIGHT to not have your personal property taken without the correct and required legal actions. So racer, you are wrong on your statement. The privilege is the action of driving on public property, the right is the security of ones personal property to be free from unjust seizure and forfeiture

You can call it legal, just like the pres calls the current practice of not needing a warrant to tap phones is legal. Just because you call it a banana doesn't mean that it is a banana.

[stephenk]

the reason cars are taken is because the car is used in the conspiracy and criminal act of picking up the prostitute, driving her to an alley and letting her do her thing to you in the back seat or driving her to a motel.

Do you believe a getaway car in a robbery is given to the suspect's family when the suspect is arrested or is it confiscated?

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by scot4538

What is the name of your state? NJ

The City of Paterson in New Jersey was consfiscating cars which were used to pick up prostitutes. The cars were confiscated upon arrest, not conviction. This was challanged as unconsitutional.

Any idea about the status of that practice? Thanks.

The practice is perfectly legal. The assets are not sold until conviction therefore, 'holding' the asset as evidence is not see as unconstitutional or otherwise wrong.

[tranquility]

As justalayman writes, I don't see how civil forfieture laws (and the RICO variants) are constitutional. Due process is out the window and the victim is left to prove his innocence (there goes the presumption of innocence) to get it back.

However, I note that the supreme court has come to a different conclusion.

[CdwJava]

Many states have made civil forfeiture far more difficult than it used to be. California is one of those states where the burden is largely on the prsecution. We have to give back a lot of booty we are certain was purchased with drug money (and cash, too) ... it's really suspicious to see a person collecting $800 per month on welfare who has a big screen TV, a half dozen cell phones, $5,000 in cash, and a new car, etc.

Of course, then we sic welfare and the IRS on them.

- Carl

[scot4538]

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

The practice is perfectly legal. The assets are not sold until conviction therefore, 'holding' the asset as evidence is not see as unconstitutional or otherwise wrong.

You say evidence. Why would you need to hold the car as evidence? taking someones penis as evidence would make more sense. I understand if they found a condom wraper, then they can use as evidence.

What would happen if a not guilty verdict is reached. Isn't it in tax payers best interest to avoid re-imbursement of towing fees, depreciation or rental car costs.

Any judge would find it easier to convict the accused once his car has been convicted ... after all, they were together!!

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by scot4538

You say evidence. Why would you need to hold the car as evidence? What happens if the case takes 2 years to resolve with a not guilty verdict. Would the state be more inclined to pay towing fees, depreciation, rental car reimbursement?

Sounds to me that it is easier to convict a person after convicting his car

I agree with you. This preconviction seizure stuff should be ruled unconstitutional.