 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Another Impoundment profit center
Another profit center for government thugs where the people are denied anything close to due process or a fair trial. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1555.asp <...> "Last January, an Arizona law took effect requiring police to seize the vehicles of individuals accused -- but not convicted -- of certain violations. Already at least two jurisdictions are generating millions in revenue." <...> "In Tuscon, anyone who feels his car has been seized by police improperly is limited to an "administrative hearing" before Tucson Police Sergeant Christopher Andreacola. The hearing is held only after fees are paid and after the car has been held for up to seven full days, excluding weekends and holidays." <...> Arizona Revised Statutes 28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies: 1. The person's driving privilege is revoked for any reason. 2. The person's driving privilege is suspended because of a driving under the influence conviction. 3. The person's driving privilege is suspended pursuant to the department's action based on a previous conviction for a violation of section 28-3473. 4. The person's driving privilege is suspended pursuant to section 28-3306, subsection A, paragraph 3. 5. According to department records the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit and the person does not produce evidence of a driver license issued by another jurisdiction. B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply: 1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked or according to department records the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit and the person does not produce evidence of a driver license issued by another jurisdiction. 2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title. 3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person. C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 33 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383. D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if either: 1. All of the following apply: (a) The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title. (b) The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest. (c) The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver: (i) Has a valid driver license. (ii) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances. (iii) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the spouse is under twenty-one years of age. (d) The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of safety. (e) The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by subdivision (d) of this paragraph. 2. The vehicle is owned by the driver's parent or guardian and the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 33 but not for a violation of section 28-1382 or 28-1383. E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A or B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment. F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A or B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514. ... 28-3515. Unclaimed vehicles If a claim has not been made for the return or possession of the vehicle by a person legally entitled to the vehicle within thirty days after a vehicle is impounded pursuant to this article, the person who has possession of the vehicle shall submit an abandoned vehicle report as provided in section 28-4838. See also: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/164956 ------------------ > Another profit center for government thugs where the people are denied > anything close to due process or a fair trial. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and holidays." > <...> <snip legal mumbo-jumbo> Dang...this sounds like Aunt Judy's dream scenario. Had to chuckle at the use of the term "peace officer" (obvious oxymoron). The chop shops can easily stay in business with this situation. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >Another profit center for government thugs where the people are denied >anything close to due process or a fair trial. > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1555.asp The primary target of the AZ impoundment law is to get unlicensed and uninsured wetback drivers off the roads. Now, I know your constant fear is that such police powers will be twisted and abused in order to f.ck with citizens and legal residents, but until I see that actually happening I'm not going to get too upset about this.  SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > f.ck with citizens and legal residents, but until I see that actually > happening I'm not going to get too upset about this. Tyranny starts by denying an undesirable population property rights, the right to due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc and so forth. The problem is, once you create such a population, a government can and often does classify anyone it likes to be a member of that population. As far as 'wetbacks' are concerned, I am sure they get a free pass as practically always. (sure, maybe a thousand out of several million get caught and sent back, but that's just token stuff for the headlines) tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Tyranny starts by denying an undesirable population property rights, the >right to due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc and so forth. What "due process" do you need? The law requires you to have a valid driver's license with you when you drive. The law also required valid proof of financial responsibility be in your car at all times. If a cop asks you to produce it, and you can't, I don't need a court trial to know you're guilty. >The problem is, once you create such a population, a government can and >often does classify anyone it likes to be a member of that population. Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because they are an undesirable population. BTW, if someone gets into a collision and then leaves the scene without exchanging ID and insurance information, the cops will impound that person's car if they can find it. Is this "tyranny" as well? To which "undesirable population" does a hit-and-run driver belong? >As far as 'wetbacks' are concerned, I am sure they get a free pass as >practically always. (sure, maybe a thousand out of several million get >caught and sent back, but that's just token stuff for the headlines) Clearly. But taking away their jalopies still helps. The immediate benefit it that impounding a wetback's hunk of junk takes that unsafe, gross polluting vehicle off the roads. And, since wetbacks are typically very poor, they cannot just run right out and buy another jalopy. This effectively takes one more incompetent, uninsured driver off the roads for good (or at least a nice long time), enhancing safety for you and me. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cop asks you to produce it, and you can't, I don't need a court trial > to know you're guilty. You've never left your house without your wallet? I'd sure hate to lose my car because I had a bout of forgetfulness on the way to the store. >>The problem is, once you create such a population, a government can and >>often does classify anyone it likes to be a member of that population. > > Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because > they are an undesirable population. Now you're contradicting your last post. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>Tyranny starts by denying an undesirable population property rights, the >>>right to due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc and so forth. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You've never left your house without your wallet? No. And I've never lost my keys, either, nor have I ever locked myself out of any car or home. >I'd sure hate to lose >my car because I had a bout of forgetfulness on the way to the store. If you are properly licensed, then either the cop could call in to his dispatcher and "run" your license info, or, worst case, you could get your car out of the impound after paying the appropriate fees. Such an experience might just improve your memory, too. :) >>>The problem is, once you create such a population, a government can and >>>often does classify anyone it likes to be a member of that population. >> Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because >> they are an undesirable population. > >Now you're contradicting your last post. In what way? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > In what way? Because in your previous post you explicitly stated that this law was aimed at illegal immigrants who were an undesirable population. Now you're saying it's not. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>>Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because >>>>they are an undesirable population. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >aimed at illegal immigrants who were an undesirable population. Now >you're saying it's not. In addition to my earlier response which directly addresses your question, I should also point out that even members of "desirable" populations will have their cars impounded if they are driving without a license and/or insurance. The cops don't care if you're a wetback or a WASP - if you're driving without insurance, your vehicle WILL be impounded. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a WASP - if you're driving without insurance, your vehicle WILL be > impounded. Having been through the "insurance compliance program" wringer that is the Maryland MVA, I can state with certainty that they would have loved to have impounded all my vehicles... even though I never actually broke the law. Their reporting system is so flawed that that could only end badly. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> In addition to my earlier response which directly addresses your >> question, I should also point out that even members of "desirable" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the law. Their reporting system is so flawed that that could only end >badly. There is a system of checks and balances in place that will insure the success (or elimination) of this system. It's called "voting." You remember California governor Gray Davis, only the second governor in US history to lose a recall election? The final nail in his political coffin was his signing into law a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to have driver's licenses. The voters kicked his pandering a.s to the curb, and his replacement immediately repealed that legislation before it could take effect. If the system in MD is as bad as you claim, then it won't be long before a candidate comes along to reform it. That's the way our system works. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >Having been through the "insurance compliance program" wringer that is >the Maryland MVA, I can state with certainty that they would have loved >to have impounded all my vehicles... even though I never actually broke >the law. Their reporting system is so flawed that that could only end >badly. They still probably want the $600+ "administrative fee" for the time (a few days, IIRC) which elapsed between my insurance (and registration) expiring and me sending my plates back when I moved to Pennsylvania. One of these days I should check my credit record and see if they listed it. Did I mention it was about a year after I sent the plates back that they demanded the money. Along with dire threats about "suspending my registration"? After a few of those (including one indicating my long-since-expired registration was now suspended) they just gave up. Makes no sense. Yep, they're screwed up all right. I'm not sure if the car in question is still in service (I doubt it), but if they start an impound program maybe I should try to track it down once it's crushed and have the cube delivered to them... SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > nate It's not always an illegal immigrant that's driving w/o valid license or insurance. Convicted DUI drivers often do it. Plain ol' poor people do it. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cop asks you to produce it, and you can't, I don't need a court trial > to know you're guilty. Judge Dread being just fine with you. Cop pulls you over in your fancy corvette, declares you blew a .16 and takes your corvette for suspicion of drunk driving. Your corvette gets 'lost' in the impound system or the tow drivers have some fun before you can get out of jail and get it back. How does that settle with you? You cannot take property just for being accused. >>The problem is, once you create such a population, a government can and >>often does classify anyone it likes to be a member of that population. > Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because > they are an undesirable population. Read your post again. You clearly say it's fair because they are an undesirable population. > BTW, if someone gets into a collision and then leaves the scene > without exchanging ID and insurance information, the cops will impound > that person's car if they can find it. Is this "tyranny" as well? To > which "undesirable population" does a hit-and-run driver belong? I've never heard of any such thing. Usually they arrest the person and hold him until he can produce bail. And yes, it is tyranny when the government can impose penalties *before* trial. But the nonsense that driving is a priviledge has led us to this. >>As far as 'wetbacks' are concerned, I am sure they get a free pass as >>practically always. (sure, maybe a thousand out of several million get >>caught and sent back, but that's just token stuff for the headlines) > Clearly. But taking away their jalopies still helps. The immediate > benefit it that impounding a wetback's hunk of junk takes that unsafe, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off the roads for good (or at least a nice long time), enhancing > safety for you and me. If they are illegal aliens send them back from where they came. Secure the border. Problem solved. If they aren't sent back, they'll just borrow a car from one the other 15 guys they share a house with until they can buy another. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Judge Dread being just fine with you. Cop pulls you over in your fancy >corvette, declares you blew a .16 Total f.cking strawman. >>>The problem is, once you create such a population, a government can and >>>often does classify anyone it likes to be a member of that population. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Read your post again. You clearly say it's fair because they are an >undesirable population. No, I say it's fair because it removes scofflaws who are incompetent and uninsured from public roads. >> BTW, if someone gets into a collision and then leaves the scene >> without exchanging ID and insurance information, the cops will impound >> that person's car if they can find it. Is this "tyranny" as well? To >> which "undesirable population" does a hit-and-run driver belong? > >I've never heard of any such thing. It's the law in California: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22655.htm Impounding Vehicle for Investigation 22655. (a) When any peace officer, as that term is defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code or any regularly employed and salaried employee who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking statutes and regulations, has reasonable cause to believe that a motor vehicle on a highway or on private property open to the general public onto which the public is explicitly or implicitly invited, located within the territorial limits in which the officer is empowered to act, has been involved in a hit-and-run accident, and the operator of the vehicle has failed to stop and comply with Sections 20002 to 20006, inclusive, the officer may remove the vehicle from the highway or from public or private property for the purpose of inspection. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>Judge Dread being just fine with you. Cop pulls you over in your fancy >>corvette, declares you blew a .16 > Total f.cking strawman. Not at all. You're acting in favor of cops on the spot, without trial taking people's property because they are declared by the cop to be inresponsible or drunk drivers. It's judge dread. I've met cops who have a very poor understanding of the law, like the ones who told me I couldn't bike on the roadway... I've come across dishonest cops as well. They exist and you want them to have power to impose punishment. Did you read that the kangaroo court that one appeals to is run by a cop? So the cop stops the person, charges him, punishes him, and another cop will hear the appeal. That's not due process. >>> they are an undesirable population. >>Read your post again. You clearly say it's fair because they are an >>undesirable population. > No, I say it's fair because it removes scofflaws who are incompetent > and uninsured from public roads. So says the judge-jury-and-excutioner cop. What if it's just an error in the motor vehicle database? I happen to share my name with a few people in this world, including a former NHL player, I could easily be run in because of my shared name because some minimum wage data entry flunky screwed up. When I worked for a big corporation it happened frequently, so why should I expect government to work better? A big corporation where we all were indentifed by name and NUMBER just like a DL and they would f.ck it up. >What "due process" do you need? The law requires you to have a valid >driver's license with you when you drive. The law also required valid >proof of financial responsibility be in your car at all times. If a >cop asks you to produce it, and you can't, I don't need a court trial >to know you're guilty. The court trial prior to punishment is the due process which is lacking. "He's guilty, and I know it, burn him" is not due process. >Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because >they are an undesirable population. You've stated in a previous post that this is indeed the purpose of the law. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >>Irrelevant. These people are not having their cars impounded because >>they are an undesirable population. > >You've stated in a previous post that this is indeed the purpose of >the law. The purpose of the law is to get irresponsible and incompetent drivers off the roads. It just so happens that the most common offenders happen to be wetbacks. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > off the roads. It just so happens that the most common offenders > happen to be wetbacks. Make aunt judy the cop and you the person 'it' pulls over. Those tow hooks and the impound yard I am sure will be kind to your vette. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> The purpose of the law is to get irresponsible and incompetent drivers >> off the roads. It just so happens that the most common offenders >> happen to be wetbacks. > >Make aunt judy the cop and you the person 'it' pulls over. Those tow >hooks and the impound yard I am sure will be kind to your vette. LOL!! I'll take the risk. Aunt Judy wouldn't last 24 hours as a cop. Heck, he wouldn't even make it through the police academy. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >off the roads. It just so happens that the most common offenders >happen to be wetbacks. You already showed your hand; it's too late to bluff. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >>rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You already showed your hand; it's too late to bluff. No need to bluff - the truth is my defense. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > f.ck with citizens and legal residents, but until I see that actually > happening I'm not going to get too upset about this. Of course that's what it's *designed* for, just like certain laws to help the War On Some Drugs and to fight the eeevil turrists... I personally would be livid if this happened in my area and am a little annoyed that it's happening anywhere in the US. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >I personally would be livid if this happened in my area and am a little >annoyed that it's happening anywhere in the US. How livid would you be if one of these unlicensed, uninsured scumbags ran into YOUR car? How much more livid would you be if you found out that he had a string of previous collisions but nothing was done to get his unsafe a.s off the roads? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that he had a string of previous collisions but nothing was done to > get his unsafe a.s off the roads? I don't have a problem if someone's vehicle is impounded due to being convicted of a crime. I have a real problem with vehicles being impounded on SUSPICION of a crime. This sounds a lot like the seizures done in the name of the War On Some Drugs and we all know there were gross abuses there. To answer your question, I would be LESS outraged than I am at this asinine, unConstitutional law. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>I personally would be livid if this happened in my area and am a little >>>annoyed that it's happening anywhere in the US. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I don't have a problem if someone's vehicle is impounded due to being >convicted of a crime. What if their vehicle is impounded during the INVESTIGATION of a crime? >To answer your question, I would be LESS outraged than I am at this >asinine, unConstitutional law. Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Brent: are you also outraged at CVC 22655a, the law that allows your vehicle to be impounded during the investigation o0f a hit-and-run? If not, why not? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Brent: are you also > outraged at CVC 22655a, the law that allows your vehicle to be > impounded during the investigation o0f a hit-and-run? If not, why not? I didn't read it, but without a warrant it's a violation of the Bill of Rights. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Brent: are you also >> outraged at CVC 22655a, the law that allows your vehicle to be >> impounded during the investigation of a hit-and-run? If not, why not? > >I didn't read it, but without a warrant it's a violation of the Bill of >Rights. I suspect "probable cause" applies to these cases. The cop arrives on the scene of a collision to find a damaged car and a bunch of witnesses who report that "the offender fled the scene and here is his license number" - then he finds your car with that license plate and compatible damage parked in front of your house with the engine still warm. He knocks on your door but you don't answer, so he calls for a tow truck and hauls your vehicle to the impound as evidence in his hit-and-run investigation. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > tow truck and hauls your vehicle to the impound as evidence in his > hit-and-run investigation. Probable cause is insufficent to come on to one's property or enter one's garage. Wake a judge and get a warrant. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >Probable cause is insufficent to come on to one's property or enter one's >garage. Not in C(r)ook County... Also, if your vehicle is parked on a public street, it's fair game. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not in C(r)ook County... Then you understand where I am coming from. > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What if their vehicle is impounded during the INVESTIGATION of a > crime? Only if said vehicle is evidence. >>To answer your question, I would be LESS outraged than I am at this >>asinine, unConstitutional law. > > Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Brent: are you also > outraged at CVC 22655a, the law that allows your vehicle to be > impounded during the investigation o0f a hit-and-run? If not, why not? It makes me a little nervous. What's to keep someone from saying that I hit them and ran even if I didn't? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Brent: are you also >> outraged at CVC 22655a, the law that allows your vehicle to be >> impounded during the investigation o0f a hit-and-run? If not, why not? > >It makes me a little nervous. What's to keep someone from saying that I >hit them and ran even if I didn't? What's to stop you from being arrested if I call the cops and say you beat me up? Anybody can make any claim they want. The cops won't actually impound your vehicle unless there is some kind of evidence that substantiates the claim of a hit-and-run. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > your vehicle unless there is some kind of evidence that substantiates > the claim of a hit-and-run. I don't believe that for a second. IMHO at least half of all cops are lying sacks of crap that will make something up to improve their record. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > nate How often are vehicles impounded for "hit and run"? (compared to operation w/o license or insurance,DUI operation,or drug transport) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > (compared to operation w/o license or insurance,DUI operation,or drug > transport) I honestly don't know; but I have heard lots of stories about vehicles being impounded and never returned due to some very tenuous connection to suspected drug activity. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > nate The same has happened for substantial sums of cash. And the owner has to prove his money is not ill-gotten gains,the police don't have to prove anything. Heck,anyone can toss a MJ seed or roach into your car and if you get stopped,there goes your car,if it's of any value. Conceivably,you could even carry a MJ seed into it on your shoe soles. But if you're stopped while driving WITHOUT a valid license or insurance,it's a no-brainer. It's your responsibility to be able to produce the documents if operating the vehicle. Police cannot even identify you without the license;you could be anybody,a wanted felon,al-Qaida...at least the vehicle registration can be verified. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > But if you're stopped while driving WITHOUT a valid license or > insurance,it's a no-brainer. > It's your responsibility to be able to produce the documents if operating > the vehicle. And you have all your papers in order and show them to the officer to pass through the checkpoint but the cop runs them through his SCMODS (blues brothers reference) and it shows your license is suspended. It isn't, you haven't had even had ticket for 10+ years, in fact you just renewed your license last month. Now your car is taken from you. > Police cannot even identify you without the license;you could be anybody,a > wanted felon,al-Qaida...at least the vehicle registration can be verified. There's no such thing as fake licenses.... I should have one of those 'novelity' licenses made up in the name of elwood blues, with elwood's DL number and the address in the book (a side address for wrigley field, not 1060 w. addison) tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> But if you're stopped while driving WITHOUT a valid license or >> insurance,it's a no-brainer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >isn't, you haven't had even had ticket for 10+ years, in fact you just >renewed your license last month. Now your car is taken from you. Yep - everybody is just a few keystrokes in a police database away from becoming a wanted felon. We all saw it happen to Sandra Bullock in "The Net" so it must be both commonplace and very easy to do. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > from becoming a wanted felon. We all saw it happen to Sandra Bullock > in "The Net" so it must be both commonplace and very easy to do. Ticket payments do get lost in the system. You know what happens if they don't think you paid... suspended license... get pulled over and they impound your car because of the suspended license for the ticket you paid. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> Yep - everybody is just a few keystrokes in a police database away >> from becoming a wanted felon. We all saw it happen to Sandra Bullock >> in "The Net" so it must be both commonplace and very easy to do. > >Ticket payments do get lost in the system. You know what happens >if they don't think you paid... Yeah - you show them the cancelled check and your receipt and they correct their records. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yeah - you show them the cancelled check and your receipt and they > correct their records. If AZ is like IL, only if you get lucky and they are nice. Meanwhile your car was taken and you had to pay all those fines and fees. No refund, the penalties from the error isn't their fault. BTW I can tell it's been a long time since you lived in IL. In IL, if government makes an error, it's *YOUR* problem and you have to deal with the consquences of their error as if it was yours. Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>>Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Brent: are you also >>>>outraged at CVC 22655a, the law that allows your vehicle to be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I don't believe that for a second. IMHO at least half of all cops are >lying sacks of crap that will make something up to improve their record. In which case, they don't need this law; if they want to f.ck with you, they will f.ck with you. OBTW, how do you guys feel about the cops impounding cars that are parked on the wrong side of the street on street cleaning or snow plowing day? Is that outrageous and unconstitutional, as well? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Only if said vehicle is evidence. how about if the vehicle is being USED in a crime? (the crime being operation of a MV without valid license or insurance) Vehicles often are impounded if being used to tranport illegal drugs. ("illegal" cash tranport is another thing,as it's the State's job to prove the cash is "illegal",NOT the owner's job to prove it's legal) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > >>I personally would be livid if this happened in my area and am a little >>annoyed that it's happening anywhere in the US. > How livid would you be if one of these unlicensed, uninsured scumbags > ran into YOUR car? How much more livid would you be if you found out > that he had a string of previous collisions but nothing was done to > get his unsafe a.s off the roads? The cops aren't doing anything to get them off the road. They'll just buy another beater and be back on the road. The people who will suffer under it will most likely be those who cannot afford to fight and have too much in their cars to say 'f.ck it' and buy another. These people many times will be those who's records got lost in the system and other such non-crimes. Now, how would you like it if such laws prove successful and they start using them against 'speeders'? Remember, the cops will have an inside track on the cars from the impound. One might fancy a corvette. One that will mistakenly have paperwork that shows it was disposed of.... one that just disappears into the system. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The cops aren't doing anything to get them off the road. They'll just buy >another beater and be back on the road. Yeah, those wealthy wetbacks can just dip into petty cash and go buy themselves another Range Rover. >The people who will suffer under it will most likely be those who cannot >afford to fight and have too much in their cars to say 'f.ck it' and buy >another. You have just described the typical wetback. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>The cops aren't doing anything to get them off the road. They'll just buy >>another beater and be back on the road. > Yeah, those wealthy wetbacks can just dip into petty cash and go buy > themselves another Range Rover. You'd be surprised. Maybe just steal one. >>The people who will suffer under it will most likely be those who cannot >>afford to fight and have too much in their cars to say 'f.ck it' and buy >>another. > You have just described the typical wetback. 'wetbacks' don't have to fight, they are special. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >>>The cops aren't doing anything to get them off the road. They'll just buy >>>another beater and be back on the road. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You'd be surprised. Maybe just steal one. How dare you imply that these hard-working immigrants are criminals!!! >>>The people who will suffer under it will most likely be those who cannot >>>afford to fight and have too much in their cars to say 'f.ck it' and buy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >'wetbacks' don't have to fight, they are special. Yeah, they have a lot of bleeding hearts all weepy for their "rights." THAT'S what you should be getting angry about, not this very common-sense and practical impoundment law. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How dare you imply that these hard-working immigrants are criminals!!! You did that all on your own. >>>>The people who will suffer under it will most likely be those who cannot >>>>afford to fight and have too much in their cars to say 'f.ck it' and buy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>'wetbacks' don't have to fight, they are special. > Yeah, they have a lot of bleeding hearts all weepy for their "rights." > THAT'S what you should be getting angry about, not this very > common-sense and practical impoundment law. Illegal aliens have become in part, a mechanism to get people in the USA to willingly give up their rights and give the government tools they can apply to citizens. You are falling for it hook line and sinker. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You did that all on your own. [Closed Captioning: I was being facetious.] I didn't - THEY did. They had to commit criminal acts in order to get here, so they are criminals not by implication but by definition. >Illegal aliens have become in part, a mechanism to get people in the USA to >willingly give up their rights and give the government tools they can >apply to citizens. You are falling for it hook line and sinker. We'll see. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>Illegal aliens have become in part, a mechanism to get people in the USA to >>willingly give up their rights and give the government tools they can >>apply to citizens. You are falling for it hook line and sinker. > We'll see. I've already seen it. Pay attention to what government is doing and trying to do. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >Illegal aliens have become in part, a mechanism to get people in the USA to >willingly give up their rights and give the government tools they can >apply to citizens. Now just hold on thar, Hoss! What "rights" am I giving up? The "right" to drive around without a license or insurance? Seems to me as long as I don't break any laws my vehicle is not going to get impounded. Do you think citizens should have the right to break the law without consequences? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > vehicle is not going to get impounded. Do you think citizens should > have the right to break the law without consequences? What rights? The right to due process, the right of not being subject to unreasonable search and seizure, the right to be secure in one's papers and possessions. And that's just with the topic in this thread. Break laws without consquences? I am sure you broke several already today. All I've done today thus far is laundry, but there's probably some law about how I added the laundry soap that wasn't followed to the letter. Most people can't make it through the day without breaking laws. It's not that they are bad people or anything like that, it's that this society has so many ticky-tacky laws that are selectively enforced nobody can possibly know them all and it would be impractical to obey them all. When you take a law-and-order stance like above, be aware that someone could decide to make some nonsenical law that practically nobody obeys have serious consquences. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >What rights? The right to due process Perhaps you're talking about the 14th amendment? Better read it again - especially the part about CITIZENS. >Break laws without consquences? I am sure you broke several already >today. All I've done today thus far is laundry, but there's probably some law >about how I added the laundry soap that wasn't followed to the letter. > >Most people can't make it through the day without breaking laws. And that makes it OK? We're not talking about piddly stuff like using the wrong laundry detergent - we're talking about irresponsible people who get into traffic collisions, cause physical harm and/or quantifiable financial loss to other people, and don't have the desire or the ability to compensate their victims. I bet your tune would change if one of these uninsured drivers were to total your car and/or kill someone you care about. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >>What rights? The right to due process > Perhaps you're talking about the 14th amendment? Better read it again > - especially the part about CITIZENS. I tend to stick with the first ten. And there you are with the special class portion, there is nothing about citizens or non-citizens about the impoundent law anyway. >>Break laws without consquences? I am sure you broke several already >>today. All I've done today thus far is laundry, but there's probably some law >>about how I added the laundry soap that wasn't followed to the letter. >>Most people can't make it through the day without breaking laws. > And that makes it OK? It makes your the hell-with-due-process-because-they-broke-the-law argument a pile stinking dung. > We're not talking about piddly stuff like using the wrong laundry > detergent - we're talking about irresponsible people who get into > traffic collisions, cause physical harm and/or quantifiable financial > loss to other people, and don't have the desire or the ability to > compensate their victims. We are talking about people pulled over by police who may or may not be guilty being penalized without trial. Their only 'crime' might be not knowing about a data entry error at the state DMV or SOS office. > I bet your tune would change if one of these uninsured drivers were to > total your car and/or kill someone you care about. You're sounding more and more like Carl and Judy. replace "uninsured drivers" with "speeders" or "speedidiots" Making us all subject to the whims of government and its thugs will not make us safe or even safer. The random irresponsible citizen I consider to be far less a danger than the certainity of power resulting in corruption. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Perhaps you're talking about the 14th amendment? Better read it again >> - especially the part about CITIZENS. >And there you are with the special >class portion, there is nothing about citizens or non-citizens about the >impoundent law anyway. I just threw that in as an aside to remind you that the Constitution only guarantees certain rights to citizens of the US. >We are talking about people pulled over by police who may or may not be >guilty being penalized without trial. Hate to break this to ya, Brent, but this happens EVERY DAY. If you are suspected of a crime, they arrest you and put you in jail. Your liberty is taken away from you BEFORE your trial. Offhand, I'd rather have my car impounded for a few days than spend the weekend in jail. In either case, once your trial is over and you have proven your innocence, your [freedom | vehicle] is returned to you. >> I bet your tune would change if one of these uninsured drivers were to >> total your car and/or kill someone you care about. > >You're sounding more and more like Carl and Judy. And you're sounding more and more like a conspiracy nut. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > I just threw that in as an aside to remind you that the Constitution > only guarantees certain rights to citizens of the US. And in recent years, the government can now just say you aren't a citizen and go about running roughshod over your rights. >>We are talking about people pulled over by police who may or may not be >>guilty being penalized without trial. > Hate to break this to ya, Brent, but this happens EVERY DAY. If you > are suspected of a crime, they arrest you and put you in jail. Your > liberty is taken away from you BEFORE your trial. Offhand, I'd rather > have my car impounded for a few days than spend the weekend in jail. Hate to break it to you scott, but you aren't fined or executed until trial is over... well until now. > In either case, once your trial is over and you have proven your > innocence, your [freedom | vehicle] is returned to you. Read it over again scott. You pay the penalty then appeal to a cop at an adminstrative hearing. There is no trial unless the citizen keeps pushing it at great cost. That's why it's shakedown, a profit center. >>> I bet your tune would change if one of these uninsured drivers were to >>> total your car and/or kill someone you care about. >>You're sounding more and more like Carl and Judy. > And you're sounding more and more like a conspiracy nut. So you trust the cops eh scott? When did you start obeying nonsenical interstate speed limits? tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> I just threw that in as an aside to remind you that the Constitution >> only guarantees certain rights to citizens of the US. > >And in recent years, the government can now just say you aren't a citizen >and go about running roughshod over your rights. Cite even ONE example. >> In either case, once your trial is over and you have proven your >> innocence, your [freedom | vehicle] is returned to you. > >Read it over again scott. You pay the penalty then appeal to a cop at an >adminstrative hearing. There is no trial unless the citizen keeps pushing >it at great cost. That's why it's shakedown, a profit center. Then so is being towed for parking on a snow route, or being towed (or Denver Booted) because of too many unpaid parking tickets, or being towed because you left your car parked along the side of the Interstate for too long (even after they slapped that big orange sticker on the window), or parking in a fire lane, or any of a thousand other reasons why the authorities might tow your car to the impound. >>>> I bet your tune would change if one of these uninsured drivers were to >>>> total your car and/or kill someone you care about. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So you trust the cops eh scott? I don't think that ALL cops are out to get me. I do believe that some fines are actually intended to be deterrents and punishments rather than just a revenue grab. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cite even ONE example. Jose Padia (sp?) is the most well known. >>> In either case, once your trial is over and you have proven your >>> innocence, your [freedom | vehicle] is returned to you. >>Read it over again scott. You pay the penalty then appeal to a cop at an >>adminstrative hearing. There is no trial unless the citizen keeps pushing >>it at great cost. That's why it's shakedown, a profit center. > Then so is being towed for parking on a snow route, or being towed (or > Denver Booted) because of too many unpaid parking tickets, or being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thousand other reasons why the authorities might tow your car to the > impound. Irrelevant. When they come on to your property and take your car then you have a parallel. Or maybe the chicago practice of conflicting signs, hidden signs, and signs 20+ feet up on the light poles. >>>>> I bet your tune would change if one of these uninsured drivers were to >>>>> total your car and/or kill someone you care about. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>So you trust the cops eh scott? > I don't think that ALL cops are out to get me. I do believe that some > fines are actually intended to be deterrents and punishments rather > than just a revenue grab. The have the trial *FIRST* >tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >rec.autos.driving: >>What rights? The right to due process > >Perhaps you're talking about the 14th amendment? Better read it again >- especially the part about CITIZENS. Fifth Amendment. >>Most people can't make it through the day without breaking laws. > >And that makes it OK? That shows there's a prolem with the law. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: >> Illegal aliens have become in part, a mechanism to get people in the USA to >> willingly give up their rights and give the government tools they can >> apply to citizens. > What "rights" am I giving up? The right to due process. There's a reason we have *three* branches of government, not just two. >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The right to due process. There's a reason we have *three* branches > of government, not just two. So,if you are stopped while operating a MV,and cannot produce the REQUIRED documents,then you -and your vehicle- can be held until you show you have a valid license and current insurance. You have commmitted a crime in not having the REQUIRED documents. But the police do not have to keep YOU in jail while the docs are obtained,but they can keep the vehicle to prevent it's REUSE in the crime of illegal operation on public ways(that endangers the public).Just like they can jail a suspect caught in the commission of other crimes;they don't have to go immediately before a court to prove the crime was committed. It IS *your responsibility* to have the documents to present upon request. (while operating a MV) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > It IS *your responsibility* to have the documents to present upon request. > (while operating a MV) Or flying, or taking the train, or a passenger in a car, or going into a bar, or just walking about. But while there may be reason to hold the vehicle, the penalties are now imposed before _trial_. The accused offender, even if guilty, can pay the penalties and be back on the road in a day or so. It's a profit center for government. >> The right to due process. There's a reason we have *three* branches >> of government, not just two. > So,if you are stopped while operating a MV,and cannot produce the REQUIRED > documents,then you -and your vehicle- can be held until you show you have a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it's REUSE in the crime of illegal operation on public ways(that endangers > the public). The driver is the one who committed the crime, not the vehicle. If anyone should be detained, it's the driver. Typically, the driver is released on cash bond or personal recognizance until the date of the trial. If the driver pleads guilty, then any penalties specified by law or enumerated by the judge are carried out. That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out before the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to contest it in court. The following article illustrates why we should not give up the right to due process: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> The right to due process. There's a reason we have *three* branches >>> of government, not just two. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >The driver is the one who committed the crime, not the vehicle. What a ridiculous argument. >That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out before >the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to contest it >in court. Impounding the car is not the punishment - it's part of the due process. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >> The driver is the one who committed the crime, not the vehicle. > What a ridiculous argument. Then if there's such a danger, then they don't they detain the driver? >> That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out before >> the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to contest it >> in court. > Impounding the car is not the punishment - it's part of the due > process. No it isn't. Due process is being informed of the charges and having a fair trial. Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> The driver is the one who committed the crime, not the vehicle. > >> What a ridiculous argument. > >Then if there's such a danger, then they don't they detain the driver? Who said they don't? >>> That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out before >>> the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to contest it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No it isn't. Absolutely it is. >Due process is being informed of the charges and having a >fair trial. Park your car on a snow route during a snowstorm and watch the "due process." You don't get a fair trial prior to your car being impounded for that, either, yet I don't hear you complaining about it. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>> The right to due process. There's a reason we have *three* branches >>> of government, not just two. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > released on cash bond or personal recognizance until the date of the > trial. And if the unregistered/uninsured vehicle is still available,they often get back in it and commit a second crime.I've seen a couple of TV news reports on drivers with revoked licenses getting back behind the wheel after coming from traffic court.DUI-convicted drivers often do the same. > If the driver pleads guilty, then any penalties specified by > law or enumerated by the judge are carried out. > > That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out before > the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to contest it > in court. That is like saying a suspect in an armed robbery should be given back their gun once they are released on bond,before their court trial. > The following article illustrates why we should not give up the right > to due process: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> The driver is the one who committed the crime, not the vehicle. If >> anyone should be detained, it's the driver. Typically, the driver is >> released on cash bond or personal recognizance until the date of the >> trial. > And if the unregistered/uninsured vehicle is still available,they often get > back in it and commit a second crime. If the prosecutor and/or judge feel that the suspect is a threat to society, they have the option to hold the suspect in jail until the date of the trial. That makes far more sense than allowing the suspect out on bond and impounding his property (which he may or may not get back if the charges are dropped or if he's acquitted). >> That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out before >> the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to contest it >> in court. > That is like saying a suspect in an armed robbery should be given back > their gun once they are released on bond,before their court trial. See above. >>> The driver is the one who committed the crime, not the vehicle. If >>> anyone should be detained, it's the driver. Typically, the driver [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > society, they have the option to hold the suspect in jail until the > date of the trial. driving w/o license or lack of proof of insurance are not jailable offences,thus you can't be jailed or detained for them. "threat to society" or not.You just get a ticket to appear in court. Thus the necessity of impounding the vehicle. Besides,HOW can a judge determine that a person with no insurance or valid DL will NOT get back into their vehicle and drive again? Do you think they are mindreaders? No rental agency will rent an auto to one with no valid license. (which is easily verified) > That makes far more sense than allowing the > suspect out on bond and impounding his property (which he may or may > not get back if the charges are dropped or if he's acquitted). the property is that which was *used in a crime*. Of course it can be impounded.And they SHOULDN'T get it back until they can show a valid license,registration,and insurance within a reasonable time frame. >>> That doesn't mean that penalties should be assessed/carried out >>> before the driver is made aware of the charges and has a chance to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See above. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Besides,HOW can a judge determine that a person with no insurance or valid > DL will NOT get back into their vehicle and drive again? > Do you think they are mindreaders? What judge? No judge is involved until the 2nd round of appeals. By then the accused has paid up and has his car back or it has become property of the government or it's contractors. > the property is that which was *used in a crime*. So says a cop. Could just be a paperwork error. > Of course it can be impounded.And they SHOULDN'T get it back until they can > show a valid license,registration,and insurance within a reasonable time > frame. From my reading, it's just that they pay. No trial, no judge. How about if they started taking cars and holding them for speeding tickets? >> If the prosecutor and/or judge feel that the suspect is a threat to >> society, they have the option to hold the suspect in jail until the >> date of the trial. > driving w/o license or lack of proof of insurance are not jailable > offences,thus you can't be jailed or detained for them. Depends on the state. States that decide to give defendants little to no rights classify those crimes as infractions. States, like mine, consider this as a misdemeanor where the penalty can include jail time. >>> If the prosecutor and/or judge feel that the suspect is a threat to >>> society, they have the option to hold the suspect in jail until the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > no rights classify those crimes as infractions. States, like mine, > consider this as a misdemeanor where the penalty can include jail time. "can" but doesn't(included jail time),except for repeat violators. Even DUI offenders have multiple convictions and still get caught driving. Impounding their autos is perfectly reasonable;sufficient cause. Besides,it saves jail space for the worst criminals. Interesting that you want to jail drivers for not having their paperwork,but are against impounding their vehicle. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Interesting that you want to jail drivers for not having their > paperwork,but are against impounding their vehicle. It's the -without- trial part that I, and he have a problem with. Plus see the followup with how one ends up with a suspended license in Az to begin with... oh, you never got that photo enforcement ticket of the driver that wasn't you in the car that isn't yours? Too bad, your license is suspended and your car will be impounded. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message