TheAgitator.com
What the Hell Is Wrong With Memphis?
Thursday, April 24th, 2008I ask because I’m going to be there this weekend. First there was this. Now this:
If you’re caught with a prostitute, local authorities plan to seize your car.
That was the message conveyed at a press conference Tuesday afternoon, where officials with the Memphis Police and the District Attorney General’s Office announced the arrests of 64 people in a three-day prostitution sting.
As a result of those arrests, authorities will attempt to seize 42 cars: 39 from those charged with soliciting prostitutes, as well as one from a suspect facing drug charges and two because the owners had revoked driver’s licenses.
“They were used in the commission of a crime. Under state law, they are subject to seizure,” Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons said, when asked if the seizures seemed excessive. “I think it’s a good law. But if you think it’s too stringent, talk to your legislators.”
Added Memphis Police director Larry Godwin: “I’d say seize every dadgum vehicle and send a message.”
To be fair to Memphis, this isn’t new, or unique to the city. Lot’s of cities do it, despite the fact that it punishes suspected Johns before they’ve so much as seen the inside of a courtroom. Even if you’re acquitted, in most places you have to go to court to get back your car, and you can forget about asking the government to reimburse you for attorney fees and court costs.
they’re eating their feed corn
You might have to pay some hefty storage fees for the impound, as well.
They were talking a few years ago doing such things here in Eureka, CA. The only thing that stopped the discussion was the City of Oakland, CA was involved in a lawsuit over their similar forfeiture policy at the same time.
Kind of a shame we had a city council election looming and, seems to me, the only concern any of the candidates had about Eureka starting a similar seizure program was Oakland’s lawsuit. Otherwise they didn’t seem concerned with the right or wrong of it at all.
Yeah, but it gets worse. Civil forfeiture can be used to seize property owned by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the commission of the crime.
I wrote a law review article (not available online) on the case of Bennis v. Michigan. The ruling in this SCOTUS case states that cars (and presumably all other kinds of property, including houses) can be forfeited to the state even when the owners were not themselves engaged in the crime. In the facts of the case, the wife of an accused John was trying to prevent the forfeiture of her car in a prostitution case. The car was community property (i.e., making her half owner).
Needless to say, the state won, thereby adding injury to the woman’s insult. A ridiculous outcome. One of the hypotheticals arising in the case was the idea that a homeowner could lose their home to the state by virtue of one of their teenage children (or a friend of a teenage child), without the knowledge of the homeowner, being caught smoking a joint in the house. The justices opined that the judgment (and professionalism!) of prosecutors and law enforcement could be relied upon to ensure that such an injustice does not occur. Heh.
HipHop,
Isn’t that sort of the same opinion and judgment that was used in justification of abusive PATRIOT Act measures? The thinking was that even though the new powers certainly opened the door for and encouraged abuses of power, we can certainly trust our law enforcement officials to only use those powers for genuine pursuit of terrorists and terrorists alone.
Yeah… that hasn’t worked out so well. Neither has this. You have to wonder what the folks who write these opinions are thinking, and what efforts they’re going to in order to avoid readily available news coverage that definitively, conclusively and quickly proves them wrong.
With news like this, it is obvious that there is no such thing as private property in the U.S. The State owns all — individuals are merely licensed stewards of all property, including themselves. The license may be revoked at any time, with or without due process as the State sees fit.
This is reality in the U.S. in 2008. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Don’t be a hopeless slave. Be a slave with minimal hope.
Matthew: Yes, exactly. The “trust us” theory of governance is used to assuage concerns regarding all manner of ill-advised legal framework. And if someone speaks up to say “hey, wait, are we sure the government can be trusted?”, then that person is portrayed as a paranoid, a tin-foil conspiracy theorist, or simply a Dirty F****** Hippie (as Atrios would say).
I’ll tell you what the problem with Memphis is. The residents are scared shitless of the violence. The police are in damage control mode so they HAVE to start showing some results.
I’m covering the story on my blog.
Wait a minute! If a person is found not guilty of the crime that caused the police to confiscate the property to begin with, wouldn’t the state have to give it back? I mean, if there was no crime then the seizure must not have been valid (or legal), right?
I guess that makes too much sense.
Nando,
The asset forfeiture case is separate from the criminal case, and is brought under civil law. The cases are called something like “State of Tennessee vs. One 2003 Ford Bronco VIN 123456789″.
Unlike a criminal defendant, the inanimate civil defendant in these cases is not entitled to legal representation. The original owner of the property, if they participate in the case, will file as a third-party claimant.
Since it’s a civil case, the standard for the government to win is “preponderance of the evidence” instead of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And if that sounds like an utter and complete pile of bull@#$%, well it is.
Brock,
Thanks for the clarification.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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.
;-)
Unconstitutional.
nor be deprived … property…. without due process of law
And there’s your problem: modern law has been written which allows someone to go through due process (of a perverse kind), and be deprived of their property when they cannot meet an impossible legal standard.
Clever, eh?
thorn
Don’t forget: crossing the state line into Tennessee with two cartons of cigarettes (or 51 cigars) is reason enough to for the state to seize your car.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2010.asp
KBCraig, that cigarette story is super asinine.