Steve just wants a supreme court precedent that will allow him to represent a car itself. - Your honor, my client, this 1962 Oldsmobile Starfire, pleads not guilty.
There should be NO forfeiture of any property without a guilty verdict and ruling from a court. Anything else is sanctioned theft, extortion, true highway robbery. How we have allowed this to go on I do not understand.
They don't want criminals to pay their bail and escape plane tickets with money that will be seized. However this should only be used in high profile cases. Situations like this are absurd
Yes! Always irritates me when people say to fight it in court. That's only possible when the defendant has deep pockets. And even then, the cops & DAs will continue as usual because their misunderstanding or twisting of the law doesn't affect their bank account. It only affects We the People.
@@DaveBigDawg Exactly right and try not paying in and see what happens. How many new IRS agents were recently hired and given the authority to use deadly force? Something like 80 or 90 thousand?
@lets-getbrandon4192 Any form of law enforcement where an agent might wind up "in the field," is authorized to use deadly force when necessary because there's a chance that deadly force might be used against them.
The government has _our_ money that they steal from us! Taxes are sanctioned theft. Asset seizure is the same thing, it's robbery that is sanctioned by Big Brother.
@@justicedemocrat9357 The lawsuit was better than nothing at all, but it wasn't nearly enough. An example of due process would be seizing a car AFTER a criminal conviction in which the prosecutor can prove that the car was used to commit a crime (or perhaps bought with stolen cash). This lawsuit was to get the car back, because the cops took it by force before any type of hearing began. Would you be satisfied with the opportunity to sue after you've already had your stuff taken? Would you call that sufficient due process if it was happening to you?
@@godsamongmen8003 Yeah, that's literally how the justice system works someone or the governments causes you harm and you sue to remedy the injustice. If they didn't take your property then what the hell are you suing for? I really don't understand what you're talking about, the government impounds your property and you use the courts to get it back that's how due process works since the beginning of modern legal system.
a million dollars of tax payer money to keep a car that's only valuable to the owner in any sort of monetary way. They'd steal a person's steel-frame strap-on skates if they could get away with making money off of them.
@@ForsakenDAemon what investigation, they just took the car without an investigation, because Detroit's run by thieves, and there is no honor among them
@@tvc1848 Literal 5th amendment of the united states constitution: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
@@neusch67 A court hearing is due process. To deny a court hearing would violate the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Who has been denied a court hearing?
@@me8042 some years ago, I was told with great pride the story behind the beginning of Pep Boys auto parts. The friends started their auto parts business back when car lamps literally were lit lanterns. They befriended local cops, who would break out someone's light, then mention how the lamp was out and the driver should visit "those Pep boys down the road". Told by management at their corporate office. Unrelated, but humorous, while going through security at their corporate office, we overheard the blare of a car horn, then screech of brakes, then the inevitable thud. Had they braked first and honked last, it's likely the collision would've been avoided and alas, it's a common theme on our highways. I glanced at the security guard, he glanced back with a shrug, I remarked, "Sigh, another Pep Boys driver's license". A voice behind me guffawed and exclaimed, "I haven't heard that one in years!" I wheeled, it was the CEO of the company. My thought was, "Oh, I am ever so fired right now!". Amazingly, nope. At least he had a sense of humor. Which was a good thing, as we were in the middle of a major deployment and upgrade on their cash registers, upgrading to a Linux based system... Major technology shifts and upgrades are... Challenging, to put it mildly. That's what makes them fun!
@@RoonMian The DA is involved in many counties because that's where the attorneys work. My not-wonderful county gives DA staff bigger bonuses based on how much they seize regardless of innocence or guilt. It's the same county where the top DA, assistant, and police chief went to federal prison for beating a suspect, covering it up, and coercing witnesses to lie to the FBI.
Well, this, the government losing in court or even getting sued over it, is the exception. Usually US police seizes assets with impunity, filling their coffers. Just strange that that's not reflected in municpialities' police budgets in the US which are still ridiculously bloated.
That was just the excuse. The car is pre can't repair now. they wan't it destroyed so you are forced to buy crap that can't be fixed, and spies on you.
It is damn ridiculous, that decent, moral, behavior, is so far gone, that a state supreme Court must intervene , to prevent a theft of personal property.....And another thing is HOW MUCH MONEY, OF TAX PAYERS MONIES WAS SPENT TO TRYING TO STEAL A 3.000$ CAR? ABOUT 50.000$...OR MORE!
Even if she took him somewhere and he got drugs, that's still insane to take the car....that's be like the cops seizing your car if you took someone to the story and they happened to shoplift....the drug hysteria in this country is out of control
@@post-leftluddite They should civil forfeiture every public transport bus in the city cuz you know someone is carrying drugs on them. and they should also civil forteiture everyone's shoes as well, cuz they may be carryng the person who is carrying the drugs. May as well get their pants too, because the pockets are holding the wallet that is holding the money that at some time in the past was handled by someone who touched drugs...
@@the_omg3242 TBH, though, there are a lot of intoxicants that don't show up an an alcohol breath monitor. Many are even legal now, but you can't drive under the influence of any of them.
@@mattnsac Have the been explicitly denied rights? If they're identified as 'individuals' and are capable of being prosecuted civilly or criminally in court, they certainly SHOULD have.
@@OneWildTurkeyname one cop, judge, DA, general, politician, etc.. that HAS NOT FAILED to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies.. 😂😂😂
It's mind boggling the courts allow this blatant abuse to carry on. Glad to see courts finally starting to step in. Although it shouldn't have had to make it to the supreme Court
Use it as a bait car? Sell it at auction? I knew a man who bought a truck for $400 at auction. He sold the after market add-ons for more than he paid. Got a free truck.
The only reason they name the physical object is to destroy property rights.
Місяць тому+11
The higher court judges need to start calling out the lower court judges and the prosecutors. There needs to be some form of punishment for faulty decisions.
Judges use judgement, by its nature an imperfect tool. You can't expect all decisions to be correct. Only if the misjudgement is actually egregious can punishment be a reasonable consequence. And there Are plenty of times when that happens.
Even though the high court ruled as it did, exactly WHEN will she get her car back? Haven't heard anything about that. Unless Wayne County has clear and sufficient cause to NOT give her back her vehicle within a set amount of time, all she has is a decision, NOT her car.
The govt will say that the court ruled the car should not have been taken. Now the govt will claim that the court did not say to give the car back, thus necessitating another law suit.
@@jpnewman1688 We cant be a lawless society, though there "must" be a limit on the people who enforce the law. Yes I do think these law enforcement people fit the definition of lawless.
It feels like this whole asset forfeiture thing won't end until the police messes up and takes the property of a politician or one of their family members.
Civil Forfeiture has its roots in maritime law, when contraband cargo was found abandoned and then listed as a party in legal actions. We’ve come so far from its original intended purpose.
The people of the city of Detroit should pay her a couple hundred thousand dollars in damages. If they don't like their money being spent on nothing, they can vote for better leaders.
6000 hours of schooling and training to become a chef. 600 hours of schooling and a training to become a police officer. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Why do the courts and cops even go through the show? Wouldnt it be easier for them just go house to house and take what they want, and then threaten the people with death when they complain?
agreed, wouldn't it have to be able to ask for an attorney or at least be able to defend itself pro se in court? Since it is an inanimate object, it cannot. the entire idea of the 5th amendment was to prevent this sort of thing and we have allowed some legal mumbo-jumbo to completely dismantle it in an effort to "go after" a few individuals who have been accused of crimes. We have put the potential crimes of a few above the freedoms of all.
@@bobmartin4942 anyone arrested in this country gets the same protections as a citizen. You don't need to be a citizen to be afforded an attorney or be protected by the Bill of Rights. If you are a tourist visiting and are accused of a crime, you are afforded the same rights as someone born and raised here.
Even if this lady was transporting drugs, why was she not charged and given an opportunity to make her Case? I would imagine that even if a person is “guilty”, and their assets are seized, they should at least still have the opportunity to have due process. This idea that you can just have your possessions stolen and receive no due process no charges no nothing and the state just gets to keep it. I don’t understand how the entire legal system is not in arms about this intense breach of the public trust
What would end this quick would be to call the defendant to the stand to testify. I want to see how they handle getting a CAR into the courtroom to be sworn in.......
This is as bizarre as a corporation being legally defined as a person, in my opinion. People run corporations and likewise, people run cars. Regardless of this nonsense, you make my day Steve with the various cases you discuss. Thanks
Nah, it's not bizarre, it's just being applied outside its intended context. Civil forfeiture is some of the oldest law in the US, and it was originally intended to cover the fairly specific situation of somebody who owns a ship or other mobile property using it for smuggling - or just not paying port fees or similar - but who couldn't be prosecuted or sued because they lived outside the reach of the US court system. Which, at the time, was basically everywhere in the world, including most of what's now the US. Other countries dealt with this by allowing trials in absentia. America bans those for a host of good reasons, but the side effect of that is that there needs to be a work around if you want to be able to effectively levy duty on trade, which was how the Federal government was originally supposed to fund itself.
I'm so happy to hear the IJ won this case. My daughter is currently fighting our state over its shady toll policies which targets vulnerable populations.
Can a car face it's accusers? Can a car be declared competent to assist in its own defense? Can a car take the 5th amendment to not self incriminate? These kinds of cases/arguements need to be in front of the SCOTUS!
The idea of suing objects goes back centuries in admiralty law, and makes perfect sense. Say you sell fuel to a ship, and it doesn't pay its bill. You can't suue the owner, assuming the ship's papers are correct, because your local courts don't have jurisdiction. So you sue the ship itself, which your courts do have jurisdiction over, and have it arrested so it doesn't sail away. And yes, 'arrest' is the correct term.
Yes. Note that this isn't a problem in many other countries, because they allow trials in absentia. That's got its own pitfalls, but banning it creates the issue of what to do with facially illegal property crime when the owner of said property lives in another country.
Those (policy holders and persin in the judicial sustem) involved in unlawful behavior need to be held LIABLE, personally! So learn learn people, learn how to access the court in the correct capacity (article 3 court)
You’re correct, they do need to be held liable. Since they’re the ones who are tasked with holding people liable and won’t hold themselves liable, it’s up to us, we the people. Unfortunately for them, when there is no judicial recourse that only leaves extrajudicial recourse. Even more unfortunate is that they bleed the same as everyone else and that is precisely why we have a second amendment.
What really gets me is how the Supreme Court of the US decided that corporations are people and have the same rights as people. When other global jurisdictions do not view it similarly.
I remember when that case was in the news. Business interests embrace fascism when they are the ones in control, and that is why they never should be. The same principle applies to MAGAts and religious conservatism in general.
@@lucasokeefe7935 I think the term 'embrace' is much too weak a description. They (those operating the business interests) certainly appear to become fascists and not simply embrace it.
Wonder if anyone has ever considered arguing that an entity of 'competent' authority, i.e. the courts and law enforcement, have declared the inanimate object as a person capable of being sued is entitled to the rights of the constitution as well. An individual subject to the penalties of our laws should be entitled to the benefits of our laws as well.
'Competent authority' deeming an inanimate object an entity makes me wonder why there was no intervention and why they weren't promptly escorted to the mental institution...?
Institute of Justice is doing great work. Civil asset forfeiture is appropriate in some cases, but the rampant abuse needs to stop. A criminal conviction reasonably related to the subject property should be required against the owner of the property to be forfeited OR in the alternative, the government agency should have to file a lawsuit and succeed in order to forfeit the property. The burden of proof for the government agency who filed a civil lawsuit should be "clear and convincing" evidence.
What you describe is already known as criminal asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture was invented to handle pirate ships when they can't find the owner. It should have never been used when they are taking something directly from somebody.
@@OneWildTurkey A taxpayer allegedly owes back taxes. There is no indication of a willful failure to pay taxes so most likely not a criminal matter. The taxpayer has purchased expensive non-essential items like a vacation home in Hawaii, boat, RV, etc. (all of which are not the primary residence). If the government can prove by clear and convincing that the taxpayer owes taxes, the government should be able to use "civil" asset forfeiture to seize and sell the items to pay what the taxpayer legitmately owes.
@@brianorca No. What I described is not currently the legal procedure for civil asset forfeiture in most jurisdictions. What I described makes it much more difficult and time consuming for the governmental agency to forfeit property in most jurisdictions (which hopefully would discourage forfeiture in most situations). My approach would switch the burden from the property owner to the government after seizure. What I have described is similar but not quite the law currently in CA state actions as it pertains to law enforcement.
@@igetu2c I disagree. The 'taxpayer' who didn't should be allowed to come up with their own way of paying back-due taxes, in a way that the court agrees to. If not, then it becomes a criminal matter and things should be handled differently. Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of the worst conflicts of interest inflicted on citizens since our founding.
Police, judges, prosecutors, all of them are in on this racket. And they wonder why the average citizen has no respect for government's side of the judicial branch and those in it.
But it could be all the lady could afford, or it could have been of sentimental value. No one else has the right to decide what is of value to someone. The government stole it and she wanted it back.
The state of Oregon's recent 2 year attempt at doing that and then made drugs illegal again is a good case study as to why we shouldn't make drugs legal
@@Rkbmommaapparently there should be mandatory "how to" classes prior to selling drugs legally since some people can't handle them, mix them with alcohol or other drugs and just plain don't know what they are doing. These are the ones who give drugs a bad name!
This is a problem. The courts itself needs to be prosecuted for using forfeiture laws to defraud the people with that ridiculous practice of making inanimate objects a party to a case.
At least the tax is used to something. Not always the best for you but without it, society will be a very grim place. Imagine a country with for-profit police, toll roads everywhere (literally all of them and 20 operators just in your suburb). The flipside is that you would have to immediately scrap your military. Pick your preferred language. Russian, Mexican-Spanish or French.
The current SCOTUS seems open to reconsidering previous decisions that were erroneously decided; they are not completely bound by the notion of stare decisis. Civil Asset Forfeiture seems like one of those issues that is begging for the right case to get bumped up to SCOTUS to finally get around to correcting. Is the problem that no such case has been able to move up the judicial ladder to reach the Court?
Steve just wants a supreme court precedent that will allow him to represent a car itself. - Your honor, my client, this 1962 Oldsmobile Starfire, pleads not guilty.
YES!
I had a Starfire, with the odd-fire V6. My sister didn't know about keeping oil in the engine, however.
@@stevelehto 🤣🤣🤣
@@stevelehto Plead the 6th.
Imagine if the car gained sentience and claimed the cops kidnapped it. 🤣🤣🤣
There should be NO forfeiture of any property without a guilty verdict and ruling from a court. Anything else is sanctioned theft, extortion, true highway robbery. How we have allowed this to go on I do not understand.
Exactly! Civil forfeiture is un-American!
Largely, because we won't allow the French National Razor.
"Criminal" asset forfeiture - no problem. "Civil" asset forfeiture - fourth amendment violation. It seems that simple to me.
Once upon a time, civilization had a problem with bandits and piracy, someone had to fill the power vacuum.
They don't want criminals to pay their bail and escape plane tickets with money that will be seized. However this should only be used in high profile cases. Situations like this are absurd
An absolute reality in America today is the vast majority of citizens can't afford justice.
Civil asset forfeiture targets the poor.
It's proof that our rights have a price tag...and *you don't have any rights if you can't afford a legal battle.*
Yes! Always irritates me when people say to fight it in court. That's only possible when the defendant has deep pockets. And even then, the cops & DAs will continue as usual because their misunderstanding or twisting of the law doesn't affect their bank account. It only affects We the People.
It's unsurprising to me (albeit absolutely morally bankrupt) that an Oligarchy like the US has effectively criminalized being poor.
Dont do the crime
When police chiefs have to pay out of their own pocket this nonsense will stop. No respect for these criminals with badges.
Seems lenient. Put them in prison for GTA.
It’s the law so get rid of the law ! Cops don’t write laws
Alternative: arrest and charge them for theft. If I take a car without legal cause I would be.
Or the P.D. operating budget. And the cop’s retirement pension.
I want to hear about the one holdout's reasoning in the 6 to 1 decision.
None of these people in the DAs office faced any punishment for the ransom of property. Did they? Nor will they.
Yeah, these people have no problem chasing bogus cases *because there are no consequences for them if they lose.*
Ransom? More like a bribe.
@@ianbattles7290 outlaw qualified immunity
How many times did you VOTE?? 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 Go away with your trolling and the SAME STUPID comment every time.
The government has a never ending supply of money. Unlike the normal citizen.
It takes the normal citizens to supply that endless supply
@@DaveBigDawg
Exactly right and try not paying in and see what happens. How many new IRS agents were recently hired and given the authority to use deadly force? Something like 80 or 90 thousand?
@@DaveBigDawg That's what I was thinking! That 'supply' comes from the normal American's taxes
@lets-getbrandon4192 Any form of law enforcement where an agent might wind up "in the field," is authorized to use deadly force when necessary because there's a chance that deadly force might be used against them.
The government has _our_ money that they steal from us! Taxes are sanctioned theft. Asset seizure is the same thing, it's robbery that is sanctioned by Big Brother.
THEY DID NOT PROVE A CRIME, THEY JUST SAID A CRIME HAPPENED. NO DUE PROCESS.
not really any different than harris and biden's nazi lawfare against trump
Oh you sweet, innocent child. You still think due process is a thing.
The due process was the lawsuit wtf are you babbling about?
@@justicedemocrat9357 The lawsuit was better than nothing at all, but it wasn't nearly enough. An example of due process would be seizing a car AFTER a criminal conviction in which the prosecutor can prove that the car was used to commit a crime (or perhaps bought with stolen cash). This lawsuit was to get the car back, because the cops took it by force before any type of hearing began.
Would you be satisfied with the opportunity to sue after you've already had your stuff taken? Would you call that sufficient due process if it was happening to you?
@@godsamongmen8003 Yeah, that's literally how the justice system works someone or the governments causes you harm and you sue to remedy the injustice. If they didn't take your property then what the hell are you suing for? I really don't understand what you're talking about, the government impounds your property and you use the courts to get it back that's how due process works since the beginning of modern legal system.
The car could be worth a dime and the state would still fight to get it... even if it cost them a million dollars to do it.
Does this decision mean the car no longer has to attend scheduled parole meetings?
a million dollars of tax payer money to keep a car that's only valuable to the owner in any sort of monetary way. They'd steal a person's steel-frame strap-on skates if they could get away with making money off of them.
@@Metqa they get paid the same either way so it makes no difference to them
You would think if you transported drugs that there would be physical evidence of "drugs."
sounds like a targeted preemptive action, also should not be legal. can't act on just suspicion to seize, gotta first investigate and find stuff
The cops will just grab any dollars you have and use that as "proof" you had drugs(effectively ALL paper money in the US has been exposed to drugs).
"Well see, it didn't have drugs because it already transported them."
To be fair, the defendant refused to assist the investigation 🤣
@@ForsakenDAemon what investigation, they just took the car without an investigation, because Detroit's run by thieves, and there is no honor among them
It amazes me that ANY court, Left or Right, would find civil asset seizure constitutional.
How is it unconstitutional?
I am not supporting most forfeiture laws but what in the Constitution prohibits forfeiture?
@@tvc1848 Literal 5th amendment of the united states constitution: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
@@tvc1848 Reaffirmed in the 14th ammendment as well
I bet you VOTED a lot.. 😂😂😂
@@neusch67
A court hearing is due process.
To deny a court hearing would violate the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
Who has been denied a court hearing?
If the Supreme Court wanted to send a message they would have made them pay for the time she was without her car.
$1000 an hour since the car was seized, tax free for the car owner. The funds come out of the police retirement fund.
How much does it cost to rent a car each day she was without it? that seems reasonable.
State Supreme court
So the LEOs took her property under the guise of guilt by association?
It does seem that the mafia rackets are now in uniform.
Not just now.
@@me8042 some years ago, I was told with great pride the story behind the beginning of Pep Boys auto parts.
The friends started their auto parts business back when car lamps literally were lit lanterns.
They befriended local cops, who would break out someone's light, then mention how the lamp was out and the driver should visit "those Pep boys down the road".
Told by management at their corporate office.
Unrelated, but humorous, while going through security at their corporate office, we overheard the blare of a car horn, then screech of brakes, then the inevitable thud. Had they braked first and honked last, it's likely the collision would've been avoided and alas, it's a common theme on our highways.
I glanced at the security guard, he glanced back with a shrug, I remarked, "Sigh, another Pep Boys driver's license".
A voice behind me guffawed and exclaimed, "I haven't heard that one in years!"
I wheeled, it was the CEO of the company.
My thought was, "Oh, I am ever so fired right now!". Amazingly, nope. At least he had a sense of humor. Which was a good thing, as we were in the middle of a major deployment and upgrade on their cash registers, upgrading to a Linux based system...
Major technology shifts and upgrades are... Challenging, to put it mildly. That's what makes them fun!
@@me8042yup.. Governments are the biggest gangsters.. 💯💯
been that way since the dawn of the "civilized" (cough) world rose into existence
@@jokeraceofhearts so you believe the 🌎 is 6K years old?? 😂😂😂
Abuse of gov power should be the most heavily scrutinized and harshly punished of all possible crimes.
Really.. But how many times did you VOTE?? 😂😂😂
Imagine being the government attorney going after this girl. Dirty.
How do they sleep at night...
And over a shitty Sarurn.
@MattH-wg7ou : They don't care. It personally costs them nothing, and apparently, they don't have anything better to do.
Is a DA even usually involved in civil asset forfeiture? I thought that was just the police doing that.
@@RoonMian The DA is involved in many counties because that's where the attorneys work. My not-wonderful county gives DA staff bigger bonuses based on how much they seize regardless of innocence or guilt. It's the same county where the top DA, assistant, and police chief went to federal prison for beating a suspect, covering it up, and coercing witnesses to lie to the FBI.
Civil Asset Forfeiture and Qualified/Absolute Immunity are the greatest threats to our country than any prior threat in our history.
Apparently you don’t know history or law.
And there is no absolute immunity.
Nah.. Who do you THINK really OWN 🇺🇸?? 💵💵😂😂😂
Support AMERICANS AGAINST QUALIFIED IMMUNITY and the INSTITUTE for Justice
A waste of taxpayers' money, spending all that money in litigation just to confiscate a $3000 Saturn?! Ridiculous!
Well, this, the government losing in court or even getting sued over it, is the exception. Usually US police seizes assets with impunity, filling their coffers. Just strange that that's not reflected in municpialities' police budgets in the US which are still ridiculously bloated.
If you VOTED, you deserve the STUPID prizes from your masters.. 💯💯😂😂😂
that is why you need to drive a 400 dollar Clunker
I think the worse thing is the theft of the car to begin with?
That was just the excuse. The car is pre can't repair now. they wan't it destroyed so you are forced to buy crap that can't be fixed, and spies on you.
6-1 decision?! Fire that judge!
Looking at it, his name is David Viviano, and he is retiring these elections.
Never mind him; what about that appeal court?
You forget about the corrupt AF appeals court?
You can fire judges at the next election.
The system is rigged if it costs $100.01 to challenge a $100.00 seizure.
It's rigged if it costs.01$
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a crime! Audience wishes hapless victims all the best. Cheers!
It is damn ridiculous, that decent, moral, behavior, is so far gone, that a state supreme Court must intervene , to prevent a theft of personal property.....And another thing is HOW MUCH MONEY, OF TAX PAYERS MONIES WAS SPENT TO TRYING TO STEAL A 3.000$ CAR? ABOUT 50.000$...OR MORE!
Taking the car when no drugs is found is the same as arresting a person blowing 0 on a breathalizer.
The car was high AF. Did you see how bloodshot and glassy the headlights were?
Even if she took him somewhere and he got drugs, that's still insane to take the car....that's be like the cops seizing your car if you took someone to the story and they happened to shoplift....the drug hysteria in this country is out of control
@@post-leftluddite They should civil forfeiture every public transport bus in the city cuz you know someone is carrying drugs on them. and they should also civil forteiture everyone's shoes as well, cuz they may be carryng the person who is carrying the drugs. May as well get their pants too, because the pockets are holding the wallet that is holding the money that at some time in the past was handled by someone who touched drugs...
They also arrest people for DUI after blowing 0.0 on a breathalizer.
@@the_omg3242 TBH, though, there are a lot of intoxicants that don't show up an an alcohol breath monitor. Many are even legal now, but you can't drive under the influence of any of them.
If the government can sue my vehicle itself, I should be able to sue a police cruiser itself.
Seriously question: if we can now sue property, could you sue a police dog that bites for police brutality?
We need to appluad the institute for justice. Every time they get a win, it is a win for the people. This idea of legal theft needs to stop.
That's bonkers. It's time to end asset forfeiture without a crime.
Imagine being the lawyer for the City losing to a car without any representation.
HOW can a court prosecute any case without legal representation of all parties involved? Isn't that also illegal?
@@OneWildTurkey Thats the cache 22 of this scheme; inanimate objects dont have constitutional rights.
@@mattnsac Have the been explicitly denied rights? If they're identified as 'individuals' and are capable of being prosecuted civilly or criminally in court, they certainly SHOULD have.
@@mattnsacsince corporations are now considered individuals couldn't you incorporate the car to protect it.
@@OneWildTurkeyname one cop, judge, DA, general, politician, etc.. that HAS NOT FAILED to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies.. 😂😂😂
As a determined conservative constitutionalist, I love the I for J, for their work. The more I see of the work they do, the better they get.
what is a conservative constitutionalist
It's mind boggling the courts allow this blatant abuse to carry on. Glad to see courts finally starting to step in. Although it shouldn't have had to make it to the supreme Court
wtf is any government entity going to do with a 20 year old pos car? Waste of government resources 😝
Got quotas to make, they want your money.
The tow yards make $$ and kick back $ to pols and cops. They have been caught repeatedly. It's one of their rackets.
Use it as a bait car? Sell it at auction? I knew a man who bought a truck for $400 at auction. He sold the after market add-ons for more than he paid. Got a free truck.
It's about the principle, showing citizens who is in charge.
Govt is just doing it to be mean, because they can.
if you use your property to commit a major felony and you are convicted, THEN your property should be subject to forfeiture. but not until then.
That's why that'd be criminal asset forfeiture, which law abiding citizen minds. Its this civil asset forfeiture that's the problem.
This should set precedent throughout the country!
The government (on all levels, "red" and "blue") have to much power!!!
Because, the citizens give them, the power every time they vote!
@@MartenKrueger-sx4methey would give us fake results if no one showed up to vote
The only reason they name the physical object is to destroy property rights.
The higher court judges need to start calling out the lower court judges and the prosecutors. There needs to be some form of punishment for faulty decisions.
Judges use judgement, by its nature an imperfect tool. You can't expect all decisions to be correct.
Only if the misjudgement is actually egregious can punishment be a reasonable consequence.
And there Are plenty of times when that happens.
Order for Habeus Corpus the car, orders compel all seizing officials appearance and bring toothbrushes
Even though the high court ruled as it did, exactly WHEN will she get her car back? Haven't heard anything about that. Unless Wayne County has clear and sufficient cause to NOT give her back her vehicle within a set amount of time, all she has is a decision, NOT her car.
Probably want storage fees paid first. They don't deserve them but it will be an excuse.
I guarantee they purposely break the car and return it with something broken. They have to have the last laugh.
The govt will say that the court ruled the car should not have been taken. Now the govt will claim that the court did not say to give the car back, thus necessitating another law suit.
@@frankdoss6313 I wish you were crazy for saying that, but you're thinking like the government who eants/took it to begine with.
@@trekie30122 I agree if she won't pay those she won't get her car back.
Steve, I Thank You for the continuing education that you provide to me, for free. I am grateful to you, and I respect you.
IJ is such a wonderful and important organization.
"Texas v. One Gold Crucifix"
The most insane forfeiture case I had ever heard of!
Should the court documents not identify the "Defendant" more precisely, perhaps by VIN? Is every 2006 Saturn Ion at risk here?
In Detroit, a 2006 Saturn that still runs ... could be considered an immortal.
“The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves” - John Locke
Forget suing for it. I'd file grand theft auto charges because that is exactly what it is.
Here's an idea. All forfeiture proceeds have to go to the public defenders office.
IJ is always fighting for our rights. Glad to hear them scoring another win!
NEVER DID I THINK MY COUNTRY WOULD BECOME SO CORRUPT AND BRUTAL.
Thank the corrupt democrats
@@kerryhannah1320 No. Because they are not.
So, if a government building or senator's home is involved in a crime, then it can be seized by simply naming that building as the defendant? Hmmm....
I'm conservative and pro-law and order and I'm 100% against civil-forfeiture. It's a racket.
then stop voting for the people who instituted it and abused it
Really.. But how many times did you VOTE for the RACKET to be your masters?? 😂😂😂
yeah, there is nothing lawful nor orderly about what they are doing to people.
@@jpnewman1688 none.
@@jpnewman1688 We cant be a lawless society, though there "must" be a limit on the people who enforce the law. Yes I do think these law enforcement people fit the definition of lawless.
Can the Saturn sue for False Imprisonment?
No, since it has no rights. Not sure why not, since Corporations have rights, though.
Who are these lower judges that found this acceptable?! This BS is completely indefensible!
It feels like this whole asset forfeiture thing won't end until the police messes up and takes the property of a politician or one of their family members.
Ben's between the Chrysler Turbine and the short cylindrical microphone. The Michigan Supreme Court made the right call.
Ben needs the assistance of a PI attorney, cause it just been hit by that turbine car.
@@michaelmoorrees3585 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What a dam racket. Shame on all those corrupt agents.
Even in an open and shut case like this you still get the corrupt AF appeals court rule against her and ONE state supreme court justice. What?
Why does this have to get to a Supreme Court before the obvious is done.
Civil Forfeiture has its roots in maritime law, when contraband cargo was found abandoned and then listed as a party in legal actions. We’ve come so far from its original intended purpose.
Exactly. It should be allowed ONLY when there is NO OTHER recourse. Literally none.
Since defendents have a constitutional right to council shouldn't the car get a lawyer at the State's expense.
The people of the city of Detroit should pay her a couple hundred thousand dollars in damages.
If they don't like their money being spent on nothing, they can vote for better leaders.
Only corrupt criminals come up with such a scam like this, corruption is so obvious
6000 hours of schooling and training to become a chef. 600 hours of schooling and a training to become a police officer. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Steve Lehto entering his garage to go to work and walks to his Explorer: "Who's a good boy... oh, you're such a good boy."
Why do the courts and cops even go through the show?
Wouldnt it be easier for them just go house to house and take what they want, and then threaten the people with death when they complain?
As Damar from DS9 says "Legal protocol must be observed."
@@DKNguyen3.1415 true. This is one of the big reasons they want our guns.
@@peachesrambo4037yep. A big reason, It's painfully obvious 🧐
Here we thought the personification of inanimate objects was strictly in the realm of fiction. What a world we live in.
If the Saturn was deemed an entity, why didn't they read it it's rights and provide it an attorney?
agreed, wouldn't it have to be able to ask for an attorney or at least be able to defend itself pro se in court? Since it is an inanimate object, it cannot. the entire idea of the 5th amendment was to prevent this sort of thing and we have allowed some legal mumbo-jumbo to completely dismantle it in an effort to "go after" a few individuals who have been accused of crimes. We have put the potential crimes of a few above the freedoms of all.
Um, because it isn't a citizen....???
@@bobmartin4942 Doesn't have to be. Miranda rights is given to anyone that is arrested. In fact SCOTUS gave individual status to corporations.
@@bobmartin4942 anyone arrested in this country gets the same protections as a citizen. You don't need to be a citizen to be afforded an attorney or be protected by the Bill of Rights. If you are a tourist visiting and are accused of a crime, you are afforded the same rights as someone born and raised here.
This is some Jimmy McGill lawyering right here.
Even if this lady was transporting drugs, why was she not charged and given an opportunity to make her Case? I would imagine that even if a person is “guilty”, and their assets are seized, they should at least still have the opportunity to have due process. This idea that you can just have your possessions stolen and receive no due process no charges no nothing and the state just gets to keep it. I don’t understand how the entire legal system is not in arms about this intense breach of the public trust
Someone (or two or more) thought long and hard on how to circumvent due process rights... and that is definitely a sickness in the brain...
Then the police wouldn't have the opportunity to steal property from someone and use it for themselves!!
What would end this quick would be to call the defendant to the stand to testify. I want to see how they handle getting a CAR into the courtroom to be sworn in.......
This is as bizarre as a corporation being legally defined as a person, in my opinion. People run corporations and likewise, people run cars. Regardless of this nonsense, you make my day Steve with the various cases you discuss. Thanks
Nah, it's not bizarre, it's just being applied outside its intended context. Civil forfeiture is some of the oldest law in the US, and it was originally intended to cover the fairly specific situation of somebody who owns a ship or other mobile property using it for smuggling - or just not paying port fees or similar - but who couldn't be prosecuted or sued because they lived outside the reach of the US court system. Which, at the time, was basically everywhere in the world, including most of what's now the US.
Other countries dealt with this by allowing trials in absentia. America bans those for a host of good reasons, but the side effect of that is that there needs to be a work around if you want to be able to effectively levy duty on trade, which was how the Federal government was originally supposed to fund itself.
How unfair! The car as a defendant can't testify to help its case...unless it is "My Mother the Car"!
Or Christine!
Herbie
I'm so happy to hear the IJ won this case. My daughter is currently fighting our state over its shady toll policies which targets vulnerable populations.
Lawyers for 2006 Saturn ion should file charges for kidnapping.
Can a car face it's accusers? Can a car be declared competent to assist in its own defense? Can a car take the 5th amendment to not self incriminate? These kinds of cases/arguements need to be in front of the SCOTUS!
That it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court tells me Michigan really wanted that car.
How can anyone with an actual brain accept the concept of suing an object??? What? Corruption? Greed? Oh. Yeah. Forgot. NVM.
Same kind of logic as "clearly established". They knew what they were doing.
The idea of suing objects goes back centuries in admiralty law, and makes perfect sense. Say you sell fuel to a ship, and it doesn't pay its bill. You can't suue the owner, assuming the ship's papers are correct, because your local courts don't have jurisdiction. So you sue the ship itself, which your courts do have jurisdiction over, and have it arrested so it doesn't sail away. And yes, 'arrest' is the correct term.
Yes. Note that this isn't a problem in many other countries, because they allow trials in absentia. That's got its own pitfalls, but banning it creates the issue of what to do with facially illegal property crime when the owner of said property lives in another country.
@@michaelsommers2356 But suing an object when the owner is right there? C'mon.
Detroit Motor City? Of all cities to steal a person’s car!
Fiberglass
@@coachp1389 haha subtle!
Those (policy holders and persin in the judicial sustem) involved in unlawful behavior need to be held LIABLE, personally! So learn learn people, learn how to access the court in the correct capacity (article 3 court)
You’re correct, they do need to be held liable. Since they’re the ones who are tasked with holding people liable and won’t hold themselves liable, it’s up to us, we the people. Unfortunately for them, when there is no judicial recourse that only leaves extrajudicial recourse. Even more unfortunate is that they bleed the same as everyone else and that is precisely why we have a second amendment.
@@EnthalpyAndEntropy And that's a very unfortunate precedent the courts seem to be setting.
@@OneWildTurkey it’s unfortunate but it’s also very understandable and foreseeable and righteous and simple and necessary and other things.
When all efforts and avenues of redress are denied, there is one left. If the courts really want to set that precedent, they must be nuts.
If nothing else, the government needs to prove that it is used in the commission of a crime.
They are supposed to. But they don't.
What really gets me is how the Supreme Court of the US decided that corporations are people and have the same rights as people.
When other global jurisdictions do not view it similarly.
I remember when that case was in the news. Business interests embrace fascism when they are the ones in control, and that is why they never should be. The same principle applies to MAGAts and religious conservatism in general.
The actual term is "person". If a corporation is a person, I don't want to be treated like one of those under the law. I am a natural individual.
@@lucasokeefe7935 I think the term 'embrace' is much too weak a description. They (those operating the business interests) certainly appear to become fascists and not simply embrace it.
Nothing will change until officials are held directly accountable for malicious acts instead of putting the entire burden on taxpayers.
Wonder if anyone has ever considered arguing that an entity of 'competent' authority, i.e. the courts and law enforcement, have declared the inanimate object as a person capable of being sued is entitled to the rights of the constitution as well. An individual subject to the penalties of our laws should be entitled to the benefits of our laws as well.
'Competent authority' deeming an inanimate object an entity makes me wonder why there was no intervention and why they weren't promptly escorted to the mental institution...?
"The object of all despotism is revenue." -- Thomas Paine
Ben is in front of the Turbine car
‘She turned me into a newt…. I got better’ 😂😂😂
Institute of Justice is doing great work. Civil asset forfeiture is appropriate in some cases, but the rampant abuse needs to stop. A criminal conviction reasonably related to the subject property should be required against the owner of the property to be forfeited OR in the alternative, the government agency should have to file a lawsuit and succeed in order to forfeit the property. The burden of proof for the government agency who filed a civil lawsuit should be "clear and convincing" evidence.
What you describe is already known as criminal asset forfeiture.
Civil asset forfeiture was invented to handle pirate ships when they can't find the owner. It should have never been used when they are taking something directly from somebody.
Please explain how 'civil' asset forfeiture is ever appropriate?
@@OneWildTurkey A taxpayer allegedly owes back taxes. There is no indication of a willful failure to pay taxes so most likely not a criminal matter. The taxpayer has purchased expensive non-essential items like a vacation home in Hawaii, boat, RV, etc. (all of which are not the primary residence). If the government can prove by clear and convincing that the taxpayer owes taxes, the government should be able to use "civil" asset forfeiture to seize and sell the items to pay what the taxpayer legitmately owes.
@@brianorca No. What I described is not currently the legal procedure for civil asset forfeiture in most jurisdictions. What I described makes it much more difficult and time consuming for the governmental agency to forfeit property in most jurisdictions (which hopefully would discourage forfeiture in most situations). My approach would switch the burden from the property owner to the government after seizure. What I have described is similar but not quite the law currently in CA state actions as it pertains to law enforcement.
@@igetu2c I disagree. The 'taxpayer' who didn't should be allowed to come up with their own way of paying back-due taxes, in a way that the court agrees to. If not, then it becomes a criminal matter and things should be handled differently. Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of the worst conflicts of interest inflicted on citizens since our founding.
Police, judges, prosecutors, all of them are in on this racket. And they wonder why the average citizen has no respect for government's side of the judicial branch and those in it.
Ben saying "Whoa, Cliff ahead" to the Turbine Car, Steve's RHS
Thank God for the institute of justice.
Why are they fighting over a car that’s not even worth one day of legal fees? Waste of money and time!!!
But it could be all the lady could afford, or it could have been of sentimental value. No one else has the right to decide what is of value to someone. The government stole it and she wanted it back.
They are punishing the woman.
@@wendyford2252 I meant the courts. The courts are just wasting everyone’s time and money
QI and Asset Forfeiture are some of the worst legal decisions since Dread Scott
I wonder why we have a second amendment. 🤔
This is EXACTLY why I keep on saying "Legalize the pleasurable drug trade and move on!"
The state of Oregon's recent 2 year attempt at doing that and then made drugs illegal again is a good case study as to why we shouldn't make drugs legal
@@Rkbmommaapparently there should be mandatory "how to" classes prior to selling drugs legally since some people can't handle them, mix them with alcohol or other drugs and just plain don't know what they are doing. These are the ones who give drugs a bad name!
This is a problem. The courts itself needs to be prosecuted for using forfeiture laws to defraud the people with that ridiculous practice of making inanimate objects a party to a case.
There's another type of immoral forfeiture: taxation.
At least the tax is used to something. Not always the best for you but without it, society will be a very grim place. Imagine a country with for-profit police, toll roads everywhere (literally all of them and 20 operators just in your suburb). The flipside is that you would have to immediately scrap your military. Pick your preferred language. Russian, Mexican-Spanish or French.
I bet you are sooo patriotic. Why do you think a country can exist without taxes? Your love of country ends where your greed starts.
@@DW10463 Why do you think a plantation can exist without slaves?
The worst part is, if we're treating an object as a defendant, shouldn't that defendant be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Admiralty and maritime law. Arrest the ship and cargo.
Its not just the cops, it's the judges, DAs, and mayors. It's all about money.
The current SCOTUS seems open to reconsidering previous decisions that were erroneously decided; they are not completely bound by the notion of stare decisis. Civil Asset Forfeiture seems like one of those issues that is begging for the right case to get bumped up to SCOTUS to finally get around to correcting. Is the problem that no such case has been able to move up the judicial ladder to reach the Court?
Every time a Police Department loses a lawsuit the public must remember this when they want a pay raise!
As a veteran and son of a cop, Civil Asset Forfeiture really pisses me off.
It's not just stopping one-off court cases. There needs to be a RICO investigation against these pirates, and serious prison time.
It's ashame Rod Sterling isn't around because he would have a field day with everything going on today.
It amazes me people trust our Government. The Government is shady as hell!
How can this be the same court who decided mechanics/shops don’t have to tighten the lug nuts to complete the job.
Civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity need to be revamped