Officer Admits Checkpoints are about "taking cars" I got it on tape...

[RideTheDirt]

Check it out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-cb9qMpgXQ

http://www.naturalrightscoalition.org/1/post/2011/01/escondido-police-officer-admits-checkpoints-are-about-taking-cars-nrc-caught-it-on-camera.html

Here's their contact info:http://www.ci.escondido.ca.us/police/directory/contact/index.html

[dean.engelhardt]

I see this problem only getting worse. The public wants lower taxes and more "safety" from the government. After debt spending (which is becoming very unpopular) asset forfeiture is the magic cure; even if it violate civil rights.

[squarepusher]

"implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."

[RideTheDirt]

"implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."
Explain

[sync]

Explain

I think it was a joke. He's quoting Loughner (the AZ shooter)...

[squarepusher]

out of context or mis-quote is mind control through grammar

[RideTheDirt]

out of context or mis-quote is mind control through grammar
How was it out of context? They hold DRIVERS LICENSE CHECKPOINTS and if you don't have your paper's they steal your car. "Quote from the officer "We're going to continue to throw people in jail and take cars"

EDIT: Nvm, I see what you meant. The video title has been corrected, thank you.

[RideTheDirt]

bump!

[RideTheDirt]

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_c1b07d1d-cdf3-5999-97be-c1d85b8f4667.html
They are being sued for 15 million in impound fees.

[squarepusher]

heres the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-cb9qMpgXQ&feature=player_embedded

So it wasn't a DUI checkpoint maybe? If they do take the cars (say if you don't have your drivers license), then I'm sure you can get your car back one you provide your license (its not like they permanently confiscate cars for not having your license?)

[RideTheDirt]

heres the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-cb9qMpgXQ&feature=player_embedded

So it wasn't a DUI checkpoint maybe? If they do take the cars (say if you don't have your drivers license), then I'm sure you can get your car back one you provide your license (its not like they permanently confiscate cars for not having your license?)
read the link I just posted

[squarepusher]

read the link I just posted

wow thats crazy. I wonder how this will turn out, EPD must of had some basis legally for being able to stop the vehicles

[RideTheDirt]

wow thats crazy. I wonder how this will turn out, EPD must of had some basis legally for being able to stop the vehicles
I called their attorney to ask - nothing. Said they'd call me back, never did.

[Grubb556]

If you don't have a liscense, then you should drive on the road, however that does not mean the state should be able to take your car. Seizing cars just creates a conflict of interest as the state would naturally want to seize more cars.

You know when the British passed the Sugar Act on the colonies, anybody caught violating the act would be tried in vice admiralty courts (no jury), and if found guilty, the court got proceeds of the seized cargo. As you can see, the state has a natural interest in incriminating people with this act.

[Vessol]

I remember reading somewhere that the majority of police departments fund themselves through goods stolen from "criminals". The most common being cars, but also furniture, electronics, ect.

[squarepusher]

I remember reading somewhere that the majority of police departments fund themselves through goods stolen from "criminals". The most common being cars, but also furniture, electronics, ect.

how do they profit from impounding, which is what a tow yard does?

[RideTheDirt]

how do they profit from impounding, which is what a tow yard does?
They get massive amounts of money in grants for these checkpoints, and have talked about even opening their own tow company to retain 100% of the stolen cash.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_62e3c307-2541-5548-888f-69f6254e2450.html

Park estimated that the city already makes more than $1 million per year from towing operations, explaining that they get $180 in impound fees for each vehicle on top of revenue from citations.

[Vessol]

This is something I found, which includes a good video.

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytkAaoF2k

Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. With civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your property and use it to fund their budgets—all without charging you with a crime.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent—and law enforcement has a huge incentive to police for profit, not justice.

If police suspect that you committed a crime, they can arrest you and put you on trial. At that trial, prosecutors must prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if police suspect your car was involved in a crime, they can take it, sell it and, in most places, pocket the proceeds to pad their budgets. They need not prove you committed any crime—or even arrest you—to take your property away.

Welcome to the upside-down world of civil asset forfeiture. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent to get it back.

And because most state and federal laws allow police and prosecutors to pocket the proceeds, they have a big incentive to pursue profits, not justice.

How big? In 1986, the Justice Departments forfeiture fund took in 94 million dollars. Now it has more than a billion. State and local agencies receive forfeiture funds, too—but we don’t know how much because most states don’t publicly report on forfeiture.

No surprise—abuse is rampant. One New York police department spent forfeiture funds on food, gifts and entertainment. In Georgia, forfeiture funds paid for football tickets for a DAs office. In Louisiana, cops used funds to pay for ski trips to Aspen. And a DA in Texas used forfeiture dollars to buy TV ads for his re-election campaign.

Meanwhile, citizens are seeing cash, cars and other property taken away for the flimsiest of reasons. Carrying too much cash? Police can accuse you of selling drugs or laundering money and seize it, no conviction or even arrest required.

An Institute for Justice study grades state laws on how well they protect people from wrongful forfeitures. Only three states receive a B or better. The rest range from mediocre to awful—and so does federal law.

Worse, a federal legal loophole allows police and prosecutors to bypass state protections and keep pocketing forfeiture money. IJ’s research shows that the easier and more profitable these laws make forfeiture, the more it is used and abused.

Its time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t have their property taken away without being convicted of a crime. And law enforcement shouldn’t be policing for profit.

http://prof77.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/police-seizure-of-your-assets-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

Wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#Asset_forfeiture_in_the_United_St ates

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such expenditures. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

[RideTheDirt]

this is something i found, which includes a good video.

Civil asset forfeiture


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytkaaof2k

civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. With civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your property and use it to fund their budgets—all without charging you with a crime.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent—and law enforcement has a huge incentive to police for profit, not justice.

If police suspect that you committed a crime, they can arrest you and put you on trial. At that trial, prosecutors must prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

but if police suspect your car was involved in a crime, they can take it, sell it and, in most places, pocket the proceeds to pad their budgets. They need not prove you committed any crime—or even arrest you—to take your property away.

welcome to the upside-down world of civil asset forfeiture. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent to get it back.

And because most state and federal laws allow police and prosecutors to pocket the proceeds, they have a big incentive to pursue profits, not justice.

How big? In 1986, the justice departments forfeiture fund took in 94 million dollars. now it has more than a billion. State and local agencies receive forfeiture funds, too—but we don’t know how much because most states don’t publicly report on forfeiture.

no surprise—abuse is rampant. One new york police department spent forfeiture funds on food, gifts and entertainment. In georgia, forfeiture funds paid for football tickets for a das office. In louisiana, cops used funds to pay for ski trips to aspen. And a da in texas used forfeiture dollars to buy tv ads for his re-election campaign.

meanwhile, citizens are seeing cash, cars and other property taken away for the flimsiest of reasons. Carrying too much cash? Police can accuse you of selling drugs or laundering money and seize it, no conviction or even arrest required.

an institute for justice study grades state laws on how well they protect people from wrongful forfeitures. Only three states receive a b or better. The rest range from mediocre to awful—and so does federal law.

worse, a federal legal loophole allows police and prosecutors to bypass state protections and keep pocketing forfeiture money. Ij’s research shows that the easier and more profitable these laws make forfeiture, the more it is used and abused.

Its time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t have their property taken away without being convicted of a crime. And law enforcement shouldn’t be policing for profit.

http://prof77.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/police-seizure-of-your-assets-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/asset_forfeiture#asset_forfeiture_in_the_united_st ates

there are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the us government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

The united states marshals service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by department of justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The united states treasury department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing state policies by highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such expenditures. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the state and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John whitmire, d-houston, chair of the senate criminal justice committee is investigating the tenaha, texas police seizures scandal.
thank you !

[Romulus]

The city police chief resigned after a scandal involving a tow company and use of those cars by his family, officers and their families. The tow company would outright charge hundreds of dollars to get your car back, even if you could get it back.

[squarepusher]

ahh, yeah scandelous

[dean.engelhardt]

This is something I found, which includes a good video.

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytkAaoF2k

Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. With civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your property and use it to fund their budgets—all without charging you with a crime.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent—and law enforcement has a huge incentive to police for profit, not justice.

If police suspect that you committed a crime, they can arrest you and put you on trial. At that trial, prosecutors must prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if police suspect your car was involved in a crime, they can take it, sell it and, in most places, pocket the proceeds to pad their budgets. They need not prove you committed any crime—or even arrest you—to take your property away.

Welcome to the upside-down world of civil asset forfeiture. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent to get it back.

And because most state and federal laws allow police and prosecutors to pocket the proceeds, they have a big incentive to pursue profits, not justice.

How big? In 1986, the Justice Departments forfeiture fund took in 94 million dollars. Now it has more than a billion. State and local agencies receive forfeiture funds, too—but we don’t know how much because most states don’t publicly report on forfeiture.

No surprise—abuse is rampant. One New York police department spent forfeiture funds on food, gifts and entertainment. In Georgia, forfeiture funds paid for football tickets for a DAs office. In Louisiana, cops used funds to pay for ski trips to Aspen. And a DA in Texas used forfeiture dollars to buy TV ads for his re-election campaign.

Meanwhile, citizens are seeing cash, cars and other property taken away for the flimsiest of reasons. Carrying too much cash? Police can accuse you of selling drugs or laundering money and seize it, no conviction or even arrest required.

An Institute for Justice study grades state laws on how well they protect people from wrongful forfeitures. Only three states receive a B or better. The rest range from mediocre to awful—and so does federal law.

Worse, a federal legal loophole allows police and prosecutors to bypass state protections and keep pocketing forfeiture money. IJ’s research shows that the easier and more profitable these laws make forfeiture, the more it is used and abused.

Its time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t have their property taken away without being convicted of a crime. And law enforcement shouldn’t be policing for profit.

http://prof77.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/police-seizure-of-your-assets-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

Wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#Asset_forfeiture_in_the_United_St ates

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such expenditures. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

Rep added