What do you think of confiscation laws

[guzzijohn]

This was brought up by Beerbelly in the thread on the Kansas "guided hunt" bust. It is common, at least in Kansas for a poacher's property to be seized at the time of arrest. This may include firearms, vehicles and other related items. In Kansas this property is then auctioned once a year and the proceeds go to the Wildlife and Parks department. It is also common in Kansas and other states for property and money to be confiscated when a drug bust is involved. In many cases the property is not returned even when the person is found not guilty.
I remember reading about a Hispanic American citizen that was the owner of a construction company, I think in Texas. He was driving on a Texas highway in his truck (late model with custom paint) and was stopped by law enforcement. He and the truck were searched and nothing found except several thousand in cash which he had because he was on his way to by some used equipment and cash talks when making the deal. He was let go but the truck and cash were confiscated. The reasoning being that the large amount of cash had to be for a drug purchase or from a sale. He was never charged. It took him three years and thousands in legal fees to get his truck and cash back.
It appears to me that this is ripe for abuse. In Kansas the law enforcement department that makes the bust can keep all the proceeds which can be used for anything but salaries. For example a small town of about 5,000 in western Kansas gained over $2,000,000 in one year due to mostly making busts on I-70. What are your all thoughts on this?
GuzziJohn 

[yellowtail3]

I think that confiscation laws are kind of like privateering - thinly-disguised piracy for gov't purposes.

the gov't calls it forfeiture, which I guess rolls of the bureaucrat/LEO tongue better than thievery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal

[wreckhog]

Dunno if they used to do it, but a DWI locally used to result in confiscation of the vehicle prior to conviction.

[Pat/Rick]

IT IS SANCTIONED THEFT!!!!! Theft by a corrupt government. Theft by a corrupt judicial system. It is one of the most tyrannical and oppressive acts a gooberment can do. IF anyone is confronted with this kind of case while on jury duty, exercise your RIGHT of Jury Nullification. This came about under the war on drugs horse crap. Easy money for the rulers.

[mcwoodduck]

I think it is fine on two conditions.
1) that the person that the property was confiscated from was found guilty of committing the crime of poaching.
 Property confiscation is common in illegal activity.  Cars, houses, contents, cash, and firearms are confiscated all the time in drug or theft cases.  In the case of drugs the items used by sellers or buyser such as cars are sold off.  In Theft the items are returned to the owners and if not possible sold off once the case is closed.
2) It adds to the idea that you have a lot to loose if you poach, not just your hunting privildges in one state for a number of years.

[Hooker]

If only Jefferson had not been swayed by Franklin.
The 1st and 2nd Articles of the bill of Rights would have been George Mason's version as follows.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Pat

[oldandslow]

In my state if you are found guilty of poaching you will lose your firearm and vehicle. You will lose your right to hunt for a time determined by the seriousness of your crime. You will also pay a healthy fine and can draw jail time. In the old days you just got fined. That didn't have much effect on the problem so the consequences increased. We still have a lot of poaching. I don't consider this theft by the government. If you obey the game laws you don't have anything to worry about but if you must poach and get caught you should suffer consequences serious enough to convince you to obey the law.

If you are falsey charged and found innocent your property should be returned immediately at no cost to you and you should be compensated for any damage your property suffered at the hands of the department that impounded it. If it requires legal means to get it returned you should also be compensated for that.

I have a little different outlook about drug dealers. If they are found guilty they should lose all their property and be sentenced to life with no parole.

[nw_hunter]

In my state if you are found guilty of poaching you will lose your firearm and vehicle. You will lose your right to hunt for a time determined by the seriousness of your crime. You will also pay a healthy fine and can draw jail time. In the old days you just got fined. That didn't have much effect on the problem so the consequences increased. We still have a lot of poaching. I don't consider this theft by the government. If you obey the game laws you don't have anything to worry about but if you must poach and get caught you should suffer consequences serious enough to convince you to obey the law.

If you are falsey charged and found innocent your property should be returned immediately at no cost to you and you should be compensated for any damage your property suffered at the hands of the department that impounded it. If it requires legal means to get it returned you should also be compensated for that.

I have a little different outlook about drug dealers. If they are found guilty they should lose all their property and be sentenced to life with no parole.

How broad a brush do you want to paint that with? If a person kills a Rabbit without a license, should he loose his four wheeler? If a deer.......A compact P/U and perhaps an Elk deserves a full size truck?

I grew up thinking we were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Unless a person is killing game on a wholesale basis, should his whole family suffer for a stupid act.

You say! In your state you just got fined in the old days, but it didn't work, and still doesn't after confiscation.

Fines and confiscations are levied for lining the pockets of Bureaucrats anyway. Take the persons hunting and fishing privileges away for a reasonable time , and if the crime fits.......Incarcerate.

Taking their vehicles to me is like, taking the drivers license away from dead beat Dads.
The court wants them to pay support, but take away their transportation to and from work............YEA RIGHT!

[Hooker]

What if a person were poaching to feed himself and his family? According to the law he is still a poacher and subject to confiscation laws.
Seizing anyones property that was gained by legal means is theft, and it serves no one but the government.
The government's place is not to be served it's place is to serve.
That is unless you like being a subject.

Pat

[lakota]

Anyone recall the controversy a few years back about the multi-tools the ATF was issuing? "ATF-Always Think Forfieture" was engraved on them.

It's stealing. But they steal from us everyday so whats the difference?

[yellowtail3]

Anyone recall the controversy a few years back about the multi-tools the ATF was issuing? "ATF-Always Think Forfieture" was engraved on them.

Sometimes they're incapable of shame.

In NC, I've seen sheriff's car with back bumper sign that said, "Paid for with Drug Money" - I think that meant, stolen by LEO.

[bigMikeA]

In NC, I've seen sheriff's car with back bumper sign that said, "Paid for with Drug Money" - I think that meant, stolen by LEO.

So tell us.....   what do you think should have happened to the confiscated or forfeited or whatever you want to call it "drug money" that apparently financed the cop car??  How should it have gone down to have avoided the shame?  What should LEO have done with it that wouldn't make it "stolen"?

[srussell]

i would like to know what is considered a large sum of money. now 5/6000 in my pocket would be alot. on the other hand my dad is old school  he dont trust banks has no charge cards and always  has several thousad in his pocket. when he goes on a trip he only has cash now he is in no way a drug dealer hell he wont evan take his own meds. so who to say how much cash you can have

[wreckhog]

I go to a garage sale 2 miles from the house. The good ole boy selling $100 .22's, $1k ATV's, and used cars told me he was a cash guy. Kept $5k in each breast pocket, ready for whatever deal came up.

[beerbelly]

If you are falsey charged and found innocent your property should be returned immediately at no cost to you and you should be compensated for any damage your property suffered at the hands of the department that impounded it. If it requires legal means to get it returned you should also be compensated for that.

Unfortunately that is not the way it works! They take your stuff and often you are never charged, because they found no evidence of a crime. But they keep your confiscated property!
  As for drug money if they are convicted, the money should go into the general revenue fund of the state. This makes it less likely the local cops will rob you with this law.
                                 Beerbelly

[guzzijohn]

I know it is not this way now in Kansas but I think years ago traffic fines went to the schools.
GuzziJohn

[Sourdough]

In Alaska it's legal to kill game to feed your self or your family in times of emergency.  But poachers do lose their firearm and vehicles. if convicted.  I don't think they are strict enough on DWIs.  I read in the paper where a person is stopped and this is their third or fourth stop for DWI.  Since they have proven they are not going to stop drinking and driving, take their cars.

I've heard of cases like the one in Kansas where they go overboard.  Then there is places like Alaska where they are too lenaient.

[srussell]

In Alaska it's legal to kill game to feed your self or your family in times of emergency.  But poachers do lose their firearm and vehicles. if convicted.  I don't think they are strict enough on DWIs.  I read in the paper where a person is stopped and this is their third or fourth stop for DWI.  Since they have proven they are not going to stop drinking and driving, take their cars.

I've heard of cases like the one in Kansas where they go overboard.  Then there is places like Alaska where they are too lenaient.

its hard to get lawmakers to get to strict on drinking . to many of them booze it up alot. had a guy here in prison that i worked in on his 2nd. dui. got out and killed two girls in my sons high school class with in three mounths of his release . he got 7 years for that did half the time and is out now. no murder charge in this state for that

[yellowtail3]

A lot of 'drunk driving' info is hysteria and not quite what it appears. The very large majority of accidents where the cause of the accident could be attributed to DWI, involve people who are waaaaay over the standard .08 limit... but a disproportionate amount of enforcement/prosecution efforts go towards folks who are around .08. I'll speculate, because that's the low hanging fruit, and easy way to drive up numbers. And we all know cops have numbers they're supposed to meet, right?

ALSO - 'drunk driving' statistics are sometimes deceiving, and their use disingenous. When you hear 'x percent of accidents involved DWI' that includes instances of where the part NOT at fault in the accident, is the one who is at .08.

beware hysteria. none of the above should be construed as supporting drunk driving.

[nw_hunter]

A lot of 'drunk driving' info is hysteria and not quite what it appears. The very large majority of accidents where the cause of the accident could be attributed to DWI, involve people who are waaaaay over the standard .08 limit... but a disproportionate amount of enforcement/prosecution efforts go towards folks who are around .08. I'll speculate, because that's the low hanging fruit, and easy way to drive up numbers. And we all know cops have numbers they're supposed to meet, right?

ALSO - 'drunk driving' statistics are sometimes deceiving, and their use disingenous. When you hear 'x percent of accidents involved DWI' that includes instances of where the part NOT at fault in the accident, is the one who is at .08.

beware hysteria. none of the above should be construed as supporting drunk driving.

There you go making sense again!..............It ain't politically keewreck to do that!

[Squib]

there are plenty of people who drive completely reckless who are totally sober, just impulsive and stupid.  I think that if they can pass a field sobriety test then they're good.  a full blooded native american (and even all the half-blood's I've known) can't handle two beers without swaying, though most guys that drink semi-regular don't have that problem.  my best friend (half apache) would have a couple beers, half a bottle of cheap wine or the equivalent, and be screwed up.  I (mostly "white") was prone to drinking about a bottle of tequila on a night out (2 or three a week) and was not affected in coordination or orientation/wits.  I've known guys who could drink half a liter EVERY DAY and be perfectly functional, their breath was atrociously offensive and they smelled like fermented apple juice but could conduct themselves just fine, in 130 degree weather in the mojave desert, and be fine the day after doing it.  I have no idea what they would blow for blood alcohol level but it would have to be a few percent.  genetics and frequency make the tolerance of each individual vary wildly.  I just don't see how b.a.l. matters when my buddy could have passed a blood/breath test and still be too drunk to walk straight, yet I could have done all but backflip fine and been wayyy over the limit. 

[bigMikeA]

A lot of 'drunk driving' info is hysteria and not quite what it appears. The very large majority of accidents where the cause of the accident could be attributed to DWI, involve people who are waaaaay over the standard .08 limit... but a disproportionate amount of enforcement/prosecution efforts go towards folks who are around .08. I'll speculate, because that's the low hanging fruit, and easy way to drive up numbers. And we all know cops have numbers they're supposed to meet, right?

ALSO - 'drunk driving' statistics are sometimes deceiving, and their use disingenous. When you hear 'x percent of accidents involved DWI' that includes instances of where the part NOT at fault in the accident, is the one who is at .08.

beware hysteria. none of the above should be construed as supporting drunk driving.

There you go making sense again!..............It ain't politically keewreck to do that! Grin

you guys crack me up.  maybe some day I'll be as smart as you two.

In the meantime, there is absolutely, positively NO EXCUSE WHATSOeVER for ANYBODY driving over .08 BAC.

[Squib]

i think it should be priority three, two being vision, one being an iq over 100.  or a merit system- take a driving test on a closed course while drunk and whatever percent you can handle and still pass with 85% of your points you are rated good for on the road.

better than 70% for people that are sober right!

[nw_hunter]

[/quote]

you guys crack me up.  maybe some day I'll be as smart as you two.


[/quote]





Prob not, but keep reaching for perfection

[oldandslow]

nm-hunter, I answered your question before you asked it. I stated "if you are found guilty of poaching". Simple fine haven't worked so the penalty needs to be stiff enough to get everyone's attention. When the price becomes too high for someone to pay they will stop breaking the law. Usually. Some just think they won't get caught and will do as they please.. By the way, rabbits aren't protected here. 

Beerbelly, I said that is the way it SHOULD be. I am quite aware of the way things work and was simply pointing out that is should be different.

[beerbelly]

                         
I think putting a guy in jail is a better deterrent that stealing his truck and gun! I knew an old man back in the late 50s and early 60s, that fished illegal gill nets. He had fished those nets all his life and wasn't about to stop now. I guess he must have gotten at least ten thickets for it. The fine was a hundred and cost.
    The last time they caught him the judge told him that the fines just didn't seem to be working and that he was getting the same this time. But that the next time they caught him he was going to give him six months in jail plus the fine!
   That did it he quit! Complained that you couldn't do any thing any more ,but he quit.
                                        Beerbelly
                                       

[Range Rider]

If taking some ones property for killing a deer that the state values at $1,200 is fair, then who is killing who. I recall how up set I got as kid when Robin Hood and his men were killed and imprisoned for the taking of the Kings game.  I thought that is why America was born to correct such laws for the common man. As far as the drinking issue, you have to wonder if 27% of the accidents are caused by drunk drivers.  What is causing the other 73% of the accidents?  Do these folks drink Tea, Pop, Coffee or is it just another government control program?

[yellowtail3]

A lot of 'drunk driving' info is hysteria and not quite what it appears. The very large majority of accidents where the cause of the accident could be attributed to DWI, involve people who are waaaaay over the standard .08 limit... but a disproportionate amount of enforcement/prosecution efforts go towards folks who are around .08. I'll speculate, because that's the low hanging fruit, and easy way to drive up numbers. And we all know cops have numbers they're supposed to meet, right?

ALSO - 'drunk driving' statistics are sometimes deceiving, and their use disingenous. When you hear 'x percent of accidents involved DWI' that includes instances of where the part NOT at fault in the accident, is the one who is at .08.

beware hysteria. none of the above should be construed as supporting drunk driving.

There you go making sense again!..............It ain't politically keewreck to do that! Grin

you guys crack me up.  maybe some day I'll be as smart as you two.

Since you've read my post, you're already smarter - what I wrote was true, and my speculation re: enforcement efforts was reasonable. No charge for the service, BigMike, it was my pleasure. But there's nothing special about the info I provided - it's been long available to all of us, I'm not the only one aware of it.

[bigMikeA]

let me make sure I got this straight...  you'll keep posting and I get to read them at no charge;  that makes you happy and the more of your posts I read, the smarter I'll be. 

Damn!  How could I possibly pass that up?  Please post away.

but how will I know when I'm almost as smart as you?

[nw_hunter]

let me make sure I got this straight...  you'll keep posting and I get to read them at no charge;  that makes you happy and the more of your posts I read, the smarter I'll be. 

Damn!  How could I possibly pass that up?  Please post away.

but how will I know when I'm almost as smart as you?

LOL! The clouds will part, the sun will shine and you  will be bathed in BRILLIANCE

You will then be worthy of joining the 20/20 club..........."Wait a sec" That's the wrong chart!

By the way! Welcome to the old Pot B. Forum. Looks like your gonna fit right in!