ICantSpellDawg 18:01 08-06-2008
Originally Posted by Goofball:
Maybe one of you "private property should be inviolate" Americans can explain this one for me then:
It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.
So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.
That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
You guys are comparing property seizure due to questionable civil transgressions with property seizure due to criminal offences. The vehicle with illegal controlled substances is a vehicle carrying illegal controlled substances. It is a tool being used for a criminal offense.
For minor transgressions with weed, I've never heard of a car being taken and sold by the government.
I would defend them to an extent, but I have less patience with someone using a vehicle for criminal activity.
If the truck or car was being used while containing a dimebag for personal use, I would oppose confiscation and re-sale. If it was being used to haul kilos of heroin or bricks of marijuana I would support seizure and re-sale. Did you expect me to have a different response, Goofball?
I agree to allow the government weapons such as asset seizure, but they should rarely use them and only in the most egregious criminal cases. Ie: if you suspect someone of hauling kilos, but pull the guy over and find only a dimebag at that particular time - maybe seize the car and auction it off.
I've had countless friends that havn't lost their car for having marijuana or a DUI
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO