We have one right that works against Tyrannical pieces of trash, it's caller the right to bear arms, if they can't trust citizens to carry one; they can't be public 'servants' that help or uphold the constitution they did an oath to uphold
We have the rights. The Constitution does a pretty good job explaining what they are. We generally do a pretty crummy job protecting the rights of the other guy. The result is that we inadvertently voluntarily surrender some of our own rights incrementally and repeatedly. One of the hardest and most beneficial things we can do is stand up for the rights of those we adamantly disagree with; we all become more free when we do.
That's a great counterargument which cannot possibly work. The ways people convince themselves they are perfectly safe and do not have to care have nothing to do with reason.
Every time I hear a civil asset forfeiture case it makes me scratch my head and wonder how we got here. I know how we got here but it proves the point, that when lawmakers make laws, people will exploit those laws to their benefit whenever possible.
At least in minority report they have a system to actually predict crime. This nonsense would apply to literally anyone with money, because any money could be used in a crime.
@1:54 "could be committed" in the future. Cops took (stole?) the car + cash. What about just a car, it could be used as a get away vehicle, take it away too? Can cops arrest a citizen with a 6un 🔫 because it could be used unlawfully? What happened to 2A? This train of thought is craZy!
seizing cash on grounds of possible links to crime has always made me wonder how it's possible. Even if you don't walk around with cash, there may be 10+k on your bank card, which is also in your wallet and which is also legal tender. Cops gonna take your card because it's suspicious to be walking around with the ability to spend 10+k on potential crime? So ridiculous
I love that tactic! Since "It's not mine" has *NEVER* worked as a defense to any crime of possession, now LE is using "It's not mine" offensively against citizens. Just ...wow.
Actually if I recall correctly it did work once but then the court did not really want to prosecute the rich celebrity politician arrested in that particular case.
Wow, its almost like this was planned out and executed so that you would be forced to seek the help of an open armed attorney. Also to relieve you of your material possessions for yet another fleecing of the Corporate American Sheep. Funny how Mr. Lehto didnt Explain to you all how You are Corporate Property of the Corporate United States...to wit 28 Us Code 3002 15 (a).
Yeah the state knows it ain't there $ in a lawsuit, and will cost you years in court and more then the cars value. Good job for the great lawyer working for free God bless em
in south africa we found a much better way , if a police officer is found guilty of incompetence or false arrest the costs get deducted from his pension fund not from the state , you won't believe how much that improved the situation
@@travelsouthafrica5048 I've been pushing for that for decades! Our Marxist police unions have a considerably amount of money from (often forced) police union dues to pay off politicians to keep such laws from being passed. In my opinion. I have been all over, pre and post Cold War. I have trained, was trained by and worked extensively with various local, state, Federal, military and foreign law enforcement officers and agents. Many in my family has been in law enforcement, including my great-grandfather, a town marshal and deputy sheriff in the Old West in Montana and Idaho. I know good from bad. I know professional from unprofessional. I know honest and moral from criminal and dirty. I personally believe only 2% or less of American law enforcement are clean, honorable, competent, moral and professional. The other 98% plus are no better than Third World, autocratic, dictatorial petite monsters. Again, just my opinion.
But in that case. It was the conclusion, punishment, control of population they got wrong. Almost everything “good” they went about in a bad way. Plus it was evil, non sustaining…. The 3 pre…we’re slaves to the “machine” taken from mother who was murdered…. The results were used to arrest, punish even before crime was committed. I like crime stopped. But often a 30 minute “cool down” would be enough. Most would not commit murder after that. “Crime of passion, seeing wife with another”. So the murder could be stopped, things could be handled without prison, instead experts to review, give options. (And not tell anyone who was going to kill who) …. If they have to stop you twice then in-depth review to see if you are violent, no self control…. That’s if you can have the pre cogs? Work 8 hr shifts, if they chose, have a life.
Front driver and passenger was probably too dark....but, if it's legal in the state that you're from, than it's reciprocal to other states and they can't enforce AZ tint law on a car from let's say, Illinois, where it's legal for dark tint but also raises suspicion....
@@MarkSarg Virginia can and will ticket for tint that is too dark regardless of where the vehicle is registered. You simply have to drive through and they can ticket you for it.
I would be less opposed to a law saying they can seize suspicious material, like money, but if they don't file criminal charges they must return your seized material within 30 days. Not write a check, precisely what they seized. This means your seized money stays out of their bank accounts until due process has fully run it's course. And if found guilty it should stay locked up in evidence like any other evidence would, in case it is needed during future appeals. If it is allowed to benefit the state at all it is going to always motivate corruption.
I agree but 30 days is rather long. Make it 7 to 10 days and more if more time is needed. People will be affected waiting 30 days to get their $30k cash back if that is cash they need.
The only way this changes is when those in charge have something to loose, like a premiant ban on servicing in the legal system or holding public office. It would be interesting to see the politicians that pass this nonsense be banned from holding public office ever again. They might be more focused on protecting citizens then. Too bad there is not a public interest fiduciary law
If the car met all of the requirements of Washington, including window tint, how can an Arizona cop give them a ticket? If this were allowed everyone who drove into California from another state with a non-California compliant emission, would be subject to seizure. How did the cops justify the stop when the car had a Washington tag on it? This sounds like a completely unlawful stop under Rodriquez and anything found should be thrown out.
if your driving in another state you have to follow that states laws, not the state your car is registered in, if said state has a more strict "window tint" law or anything else and your car violates it in that state but not your own your going to get ticketed in that state. they'll pull the whole ignorance is no excuse bs (but cops can be ignorant of laws right?)
@@21warmasters wrong, Cars are subjected to laws of the state they're registered in, not the state they're driving in. It's to make it easier to go from state to state without issues. And before you state "oh, the ignorance of the law is no escuse" you pull the, "this car isn't under your jurisdiction." which, it isn't. Sorry, you fail sir.
The AZ COPS *CAN* stop an out of state car for tint. Whether they can ticket the car, IDK. But they *CAN* have a dog do a free air sniff, which they did. The dog alerted, and gave the COPS PC to search the vehicle, whereupon they found a small amount of pot and a wad of cash. The stop was 100% pretextual, but also 100% legal.
Our state changed our civil forfeiture laws here! Stemmed from a lady who’s son drove her vehicle was seized by Pinal County years back! We need another tweak of this law here in Arizona
@@stephen673 I would think they are safe. Cops usually don't take checks. It is a cash only confiscation. The story goes, why do you have so much cash, you must be commiting a crime. Checks have a paper trail, there is proof where the money came from. Without receipts cash is hard to provide a paper trail. Documents, documentation, paper receipts. First rule, if a cop asks if he can search your vehicle, the answer is always NO.
You know, there are buildings called banks that are full of money in every town, and some of that money has and will be used to commit crimes. I think some of these officers lack imagination.
If he was stopped for "window tinting", why did they have to search his car? Obviously, you can see the tint without going into any part of the car. The "could be used in a future crime" excuse is frightening, because ANYTHING you own "could be used in a future crime" and seized.
The kid probably gave the cop permission to search. They act all friendly and say "you don't have any drugs in here do you?" When you say no, they say, "well, you don't mind if I take a look do you?" If you say yes then you are screwed. If you say no, then you are screwed. Best to say no, you won't beat the ride but you may be the rap because of the illegal search.
Ah, but the presidents on those bills are all wearing sunglassses that are tinted too darkly. Clearly, those presidents are conspiring to commit some future crime and must be sentenced to life for their as-yet uncommitted crimes.
Could have been avoided had he refused to consent to the search. Yes, the law needs to be banished, and the cop that stopped him should be in prison with the police chief and the mayor and the governor. Never ever consent to any search.
By their logic... A police issue pistol might one day be used in a crime so we should automatically seize every police issue side arm immediately upon noticing one.
When a public official uses his or her power to violate the constitutional rights of any citizen that is known as "color of law" viiolation. I thought it is a term you might want to remember, because you definitely have the right idea! Specifically the law states: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. I do not understand why civil asset forfeiture is not prosecuted under color of law! Thank you!
People going to auctions and other sales where they only accept cash have been being robbed by these laws for years (think storage wars etc.) the claim by this forfeiture nonsense has always been "you have no need to posses more than x (in most cases $500ish) unless you plan to use it for an illegal purpose". Anyone who has been to these legal auctions selling surplus etc. legal goods knows one auction alone could cost thousands and they do not take checks or credit cards especially from out of state customers.
I would think so. But who’s going to challenge this? Nobody is holding anyone accountable anymore. Someone would have to bring this to someone’s attention that doesn’t have ties to this DA.
I remember a report stating that "average" currency usually tested positive for cocaine, and other drugs, as well as feces. Dirty money, in more ways than one...
I know this was rhetorical but they search every car they can. They are looking for cash first and drugs second. Police departments get to share confiscated money and property. I have seen Police in Louisiana drive Mercedes paid for by seized money. You are lucky to get thru LA on I 10 without getting pulled over and searched.
I think it is of value to mention that Pro Bono does not actually mean "for free" but actually Pro bono is short for the Latin phrase pro bono publico, which means "for the public good." This is especially important in this sort of case where the precedent is actually a much bigger issue than righting an obvious wrong.
Reminds me of the story where the defendant wanted the female prosecutor arrested for prostitution "because she had the equipment which could be used for prostitution."
●●● Asset forfeiture is one reason why I own and drive a 1994 vehicle - complete with extensive Florida sunburnt paint. That, AND, why I don't drive around with 10's of thousands of dollars. LOL
I was om vacation several years ago in Vancouver B.C I was watching the news the story came on about a man that had been serving time in eastern Canada and was being released so he got permission to go to Vancouver he even had an approved residence to stay at. So the big day comes and he boards a bus for Vancouver he steps off the bus to waiting police to rearrest him and their reason for doing so future crimes they felt that he will most likely reoffend.
Years ago,. there was a news story about a group of parents belonging to some religious cult. They threw their children into the ocean, because their "prophet" foretold that these children would grow up to be criminals. So whaddaya know, these sweet parents protected us all from future criminals! I think the government authorities stepped in and threw the parents in jail to protect society from the parents' future crimes. The latter action was probably more effective at crime prevention.
A government official's assumption is NOT a reason to violate property rights. Especially if that decision can be of direct benefit to that official! OBVIOUS US Const. violation!
If your boss in the office gave the same coercive choices that the legal system does he would lose his job as an immoral monster. This is why you should only be charged with the most applicable crime. Bargaining side crimes and punishments corrupts the system.
Let's seize all the money in the bank accounts of every congressperson, every judge, and every police officer, because that money COULD be used in a future crime.
About 14 years ago my Son was arrested for selling pot out of his VW Westy camper van. A long hair in a VW camper sitting on the busiest corner in a small town with foot traffic coming and going. Duh! (Michigan, Steve L.) Well the critical court date came and we were standing in the lobby as my Son was being advised/coached his Lawyer and his Mom. I stood there listening and thinking,... "Here's is my advice for you Son,.... If you wanna become a criminal you better become a Lawyer, a Judge, or a Cop first". I held my 2 cents but still chuckle about it years latter.
I don’t understand, if the government agencies know it’s unconstitutional or against the law, that do it anyway. So the courts have to rule on something already known. Then there are no consequences for them doing these things and they continue to do it.
Larry the Cable Guy said it the best " I don't care who you are " There are certain things we all have " Done that....been there" Everyone in the world and anywhere in the world we all share some things to reminisce The rose we remember The thorns we forget So we rely on the past And special moments that last Were they as tender As we dare to remember? Such a fine time as this What could equal the bliss The thrill of the first kiss
Considering the conflicts of interest involved with a prosecutor being the arbiter in civil asset forfeiture proceedings, is it possible they will lose their licenses through an ethics complaint to the State Bar Association? Ignoring an obvious conflict of interest for financial gain, even if they do not directly benefit, doesn't seem to be a minor offense.
@@Milesco That isn't the case at all. There are a lot more to ethical codes than the conflict between the lawyer and their client. an ethical violation. Federal judges violate the ethical codes when they refuse to recuse themselves from cases they preside over when they have a financial stake in one of the parties. That was a story only a week or so ago. If anything, this is a worse ethical violation, as the conflict is even more obvious. The prosecutor is an employee of one of the parties. It would be like suing a company, and having one of their attorneys be the judge in your suit against the company. how blatantly unethical does it need to be?
@@Milesco Your ideas on what constitute ethical violations is far more narrow that what the State Bar Associations have written. A prosecutor is a lawyer. A lawyer has an ethical obligation to not have a conflict of interest towards both their client and the opposing client. The prosecutor employed by the state acting as the judge/arbitrator/whatever is creating an obvious conflict of interest that any self-respecting lawyer would know to avoid.
This is why popular culture is great: It does in fact enable you to reminisce with people you don't know, because the odds are, they too know what you're reminiscing about, since the cultural touchstones in question are, as per the term, popular.
So.. at this point the couple's not getting their car back. They're just allowed to complain, and something might happen at some far distant point in the future after a huge expenditure of time and money (of theirs and others).
We complain about politicians but between upholding civil asset forfeiture, inventing qualified immunity, deeming corporations as persons and money as speech, the Supreme Court has done more than their share to keep the average person defenseless from tyranny.
This is absurd, they should not be able to take anything unless the stuff they take is actual evidence. And they should not be able to keep it unless there is a conviction. They should NOT be able to seize a vehicle just because it MAY be used in a FUTURE crime. Also, they should not be able to keep cars lawfully purchase by anyone, even criminals. Once things are all said and done the vehicle should be returned to the owner. How is this crap allowed in this country?
Every government employee who has knowingly participated in this obviously wrong, kleptocratic crime against the public belongs in prison. I mean civil asset forfeiture in general, not just this case. It's a shame that this case has so many unique wrinkles, as it may be hard to apply the precedent to a case where, say, the car was in the possession of the owner, or the police were suggesting that the property was the fruit of criminal activity (as opposed to this Minority Report nonsense about future crime). There are some things that make it a fortunate precedent too, though. I guess we should be grateful for that, even if none of this should be happening at all.
State needs to stop with the tyranny, repay the plaintiff plus interest and compensate for inflation. I would add mental anguish/stress but I doubt the state will even come through on the first two demands.
Taxpayers of Arizona you're paying for police abusing the civil rights of citizens. Everybody should be complaining to Navajo County Arizona city manager.
But yet a person can drive their car up to your house, break into your house, load your stuff into their car, get caught with your stuff in their car. Then show up in court driving that same car to court and they do not take that car away from them to stop them from riding around breaking into other peoples home. We realllly need to rethink this.This happened at my house and when I showed up for court they showed up to court in the same car that they used to break into my house, same car, same tag, same ladies, same damaged front finder.
Asset forfeiture has always shown me that, despite, the Constitution, we have no rights
After we are done please sign here saying you told us we could
We have one right that works against Tyrannical pieces of trash, it's caller the right to bear arms, if they can't trust citizens to carry one; they can't be public 'servants' that help or uphold the constitution they did an oath to uphold
And thats for "your safety". You are property of a Corporation Called the United States, what do you Expect?
Property taxes show me the same thing every year.
We have the rights. The Constitution does a pretty good job explaining what they are. We generally do a pretty crummy job protecting the rights of the other guy. The result is that we inadvertently voluntarily surrender some of our own rights incrementally and repeatedly. One of the hardest and most beneficial things we can do is stand up for the rights of those we adamantly disagree with; we all become more free when we do.
In the USA, you are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Unless the government doesn't want to let you have that right.
And with qualified immunity they can do a lot worse than ignore your Second Amendment Right, they can also shoot you with your own gun.
I think we should implement something called Civil Employment Forfeiture for any judge that thinks CAF is constitutional.
If this doesn’t worry you then imagine law enforcement seizing your lawfully owned guns because they could be used in a crime.
The same argument can be used to declare police as terrorist/gang because they act in a group while armed and wearing armor.
a very good argument
@@prjndigo The also have their own slang and gang signs.
Or your house could become a meth lab.
That's a great counterargument which cannot possibly work. The ways people convince themselves they are perfectly safe and do not have to care have nothing to do with reason.
Every time I hear a civil asset forfeiture case it makes me scratch my head and wonder how we got here. I know how we got here but it proves the point, that when lawmakers make laws, people will exploit those laws to their benefit whenever possible.
Profit seeking ontology
You mean scumbags will exploit the legislation
The lost war on drugs.
Something about a road to a dark, hot place and good intentions
Not to over simplify history but, The War on Drugs.
The institute for Justice is kicking arse and taking names💥
That "could be used in a future crime" sounds suspiciously like the plot of "Minority Report".
That's what I'm thinking too. Are they mind readers?
Policing lead by 3 crack-babies in a hot tub
At least in minority report they have a system to actually predict crime. This nonsense would apply to literally anyone with money, because any money could be used in a crime.
@1:54 "could be committed" in the future. Cops took (stole?) the car + cash.
What about just a car, it could be used as a get away vehicle, take it away too?
Can cops arrest a citizen with a 6un 🔫 because it could be used unlawfully?
What happened to 2A?
This train of thought is craZy!
So true
seizing cash on grounds of possible links to crime has always made me wonder how it's possible. Even if you don't walk around with cash, there may be 10+k on your bank card, which is also in your wallet and which is also legal tender. Cops gonna take your card because it's suspicious to be walking around with the ability to spend 10+k on potential crime? So ridiculous
Land of the free, where you need to worry about the cops more than so called criminals
I love that tactic! Since "It's not mine" has *NEVER* worked as a defense to any crime of possession, now LE is using "It's not mine" offensively against citizens. Just ...wow.
When has a court ever imposed upon itself that which it imposes upon us?
@@dmelson7502 bingo rules for thee and not for me
Actually if I recall correctly it did work once but then the court did not really want to prosecute the rich celebrity politician arrested in that particular case.
Wow, its almost like this was planned out and executed so that you would be forced to seek the help of an open armed attorney. Also to relieve you of your material possessions for yet another fleecing of the Corporate American Sheep. Funny how Mr. Lehto didnt Explain to you all how You are Corporate Property of the Corporate United States...to wit 28 Us Code 3002 15 (a).
@@dmelson7502 no. Iuo
I've just investigated myself, and I found I've done nothing wrong.
But you might do something wrong that’s the point we don’t trust you so give it up
Escape - Now THAT is funny. When cops do it, not so funny.
I have a picture of a real newspaper headline somewhere: “Senate declares itself clean on ethics”. 😂
I snickered at this....
Lol
So where are the robbery charges for the cops who seized this vehicle with firearms present?
Yeah the state knows it ain't there $ in a lawsuit, and will cost you years in court and more then the cars value.
Good job for the great lawyer working for free God bless em
Like Steve says it needs to go to the highest court and the people need a solid win go for your gold 🏆
@@kenheisner288 yeah but you got to have a lawyer and money to get a good 1
We need to start sending law enforcement officers and prosecutors to prison.
Shoot, there needs to be an insurrection against corruption in all its forms.
@@johntracy72 legally, yes. Within the boundaries of the established laws. And laws changed to accommodate any escaping through loopholes.
get rid of the cop unions, qualified immunity, and internal investigations for starters
in south africa we found a much better way , if a police officer is found guilty of incompetence or false arrest the costs get deducted from his pension fund not from the state , you won't believe how much that improved the situation
@@travelsouthafrica5048 I've been pushing for that for decades! Our Marxist police unions have a considerably amount of money from (often forced) police union dues to pay off politicians to keep such laws from being passed. In my opinion. I have been all over, pre and post Cold War. I have trained, was trained by and worked extensively with various local, state, Federal, military and foreign law enforcement officers and agents. Many in my family has been in law enforcement, including my great-grandfather, a town marshal and deputy sheriff in the Old West in Montana and Idaho. I know good from bad. I know professional from unprofessional. I know honest and moral from criminal and dirty. I personally believe only 2% or less of American law enforcement are clean, honorable, competent, moral and professional. The other 98% plus are no better than Third World, autocratic, dictatorial petite monsters. Again, just my opinion.
Thank you for keep this in the public eye .
The logic of the state's argument reminds me of that movie with Tom Cruise - Minority Report.
But in that case. It was the conclusion, punishment, control of population they got wrong. Almost everything “good” they went about in a bad way. Plus it was evil, non sustaining….
The 3 pre…we’re slaves to the “machine” taken from mother who was murdered…. The results were used to arrest, punish even before crime was committed. I like crime stopped. But often a 30 minute “cool down” would be enough. Most would not commit murder after that. “Crime of passion, seeing wife with another”. So the murder could be stopped, things could be handled without prison, instead experts to review, give options. (And not tell anyone who was going to kill who) …. If they have to stop you twice then in-depth review to see if you are violent, no self control…. That’s if you can have the pre cogs? Work 8 hr shifts, if they chose, have a life.
Pulled over for tinted windows in Arizona? Thats hilarious.
It happens in Oklahoma as well.
Have you seen how dark the Arizona police tint their windows?
@@superdave2316 Tint laws don't apply to police cars. Funny how that works...
Front driver and passenger was probably too dark....but, if it's legal in the state that you're from, than it's reciprocal to other states and they can't enforce AZ tint law on a car from let's say, Illinois, where it's legal for dark tint but also raises suspicion....
@@MarkSarg Virginia can and will ticket for tint that is too dark regardless of where the vehicle is registered. You simply have to drive through and they can ticket you for it.
I would be less opposed to a law saying they can seize suspicious material, like money, but if they don't file criminal charges they must return your seized material within 30 days. Not write a check, precisely what they seized. This means your seized money stays out of their bank accounts until due process has fully run it's course. And if found guilty it should stay locked up in evidence like any other evidence would, in case it is needed during future appeals. If it is allowed to benefit the state at all it is going to always motivate corruption.
that is too simple and too eloquent a solution
I agree but 30 days is rather long. Make it 7 to 10 days and more if more time is needed. People will be affected waiting 30 days to get their $30k cash back if that is cash they need.
There are people every day coming to this country with lots of cash for surgery as an example
The only way this changes is when those in charge have something to loose, like a premiant ban on servicing in the legal system or holding public office. It would be interesting to see the politicians that pass this nonsense be banned from holding public office ever again. They might be more focused on protecting citizens then. Too bad there is not a public interest fiduciary law
You'd still have to prove that the money was the fruit of the crime.
If the car met all of the requirements of Washington, including window tint, how can an Arizona cop give them a ticket? If this were allowed everyone who drove into California from another state with a non-California compliant emission, would be subject to seizure. How did the cops justify the stop when the car had a Washington tag on it? This sounds like a completely unlawful stop under Rodriquez and anything found should be thrown out.
if your driving in another state you have to follow that states laws, not the state your car is registered in, if said state has a more strict "window tint" law or anything else and your car violates it in that state but not your own your going to get ticketed in that state.
they'll pull the whole ignorance is no excuse bs (but cops can be ignorant of laws right?)
@@21warmasters wrong, Cars are subjected to laws of the state they're registered in, not the state they're driving in. It's to make it easier to go from state to state without issues. And before you state "oh, the ignorance of the law is no escuse" you pull the, "this car isn't under your jurisdiction." which, it isn't. Sorry, you fail sir.
@@lupvirga You are wrong. That has never been found to be true by any Court.
The AZ COPS *CAN* stop an out of state car for tint. Whether they can ticket the car, IDK. But they *CAN* have a dog do a free air sniff, which they did. The dog alerted, and gave the COPS PC to search the vehicle, whereupon they found a small amount of pot and a wad of cash. The stop was 100% pretextual, but also 100% legal.
@Donny D
1) Did you watch the video?
2) Did you hear Steve use the phrase "civil asset forfeiture?"
3) Do you know what that is?
And the term road pirates fit better more and more every day!
Another success for the Institute for Justice.
Our state changed our civil forfeiture laws here! Stemmed from a lady who’s son drove her vehicle was seized by Pinal County years back! We need another tweak of this law here in Arizona
You have no rights your not willing to fight kill & die for.
@@stephen673 I would think they are safe. Cops usually don't take checks. It is a cash only confiscation. The story goes, why do you have so much cash, you must be commiting a crime. Checks have a paper trail, there is proof where the money came from. Without receipts cash is hard to provide a paper trail. Documents, documentation, paper receipts. First rule, if a cop asks if he can search your vehicle, the answer is always NO.
Why bother when the police don't have to follow the law?
Tweek? More like a complete removal!
You know, there are buildings called banks that are full of money in every town, and some of that money has and will be used to commit crimes.
I think some of these officers lack imagination.
Don't forget the safety deposit boxes, full of loot, that can be used to buy sports cars for the police department.
So they have a crystal ball now... wonderful. Someone watched Minority Report and thought it was a documentary.
Institute for Justice out there doing God's work as always.
Not always, they also have a record of defending sovereign citizens.
If he was stopped for "window tinting", why did they have to search his car? Obviously, you can see the tint without going into any part of the car.
The "could be used in a future crime" excuse is frightening, because ANYTHING you own "could be used in a future crime" and seized.
That's because it was always about extortion and theft from the very beginning with these pigs.
@@DanIel-eq9ob DING-DING-DING!!! THE FACTS, RIGHT HERE!!! EXTORTION!!!
The kid probably gave the cop permission to search. They act all friendly and say "you don't have any drugs in here do you?" When you say no, they say, "well, you don't mind if I take a look do you?" If you say yes then you are screwed. If you say no, then you are screwed. Best to say no, you won't beat the ride but you may be the rap because of the illegal search.
I wonder if the institute for justice is making any kind of case for getting the $31,000 returned?
Without a doubt that was my very 1st thought.
Ah, but the presidents on those bills are all wearing sunglassses that are tinted too darkly.
Clearly, those presidents are conspiring to commit some future crime and must be sentenced to life for their as-yet uncommitted crimes.
@@Relkond;o) You betcha!
Could have been avoided had he refused to consent to the search. Yes, the law needs to be banished, and the cop that stopped him should be in prison with the police chief and the mayor and the governor.
Never ever consent to any search.
By their logic... A police issue pistol might one day be used in a crime so we should automatically seize every police issue side arm immediately upon noticing one.
this stuff is sickening. people need to be charged with treason for stealing people's property like this.
When a public official uses his or her power to violate the constitutional rights of any citizen that is known as "color of law" viiolation. I thought it is a term you might want to remember, because you definitely have the right idea! Specifically the law states:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
I do not understand why civil asset forfeiture is not prosecuted under color of law!
Thank you!
Another example of government overreach!
By the logic of an alleged future crime, anyone's property could be seized anytime in the People's Republic of Arizona.
People going to auctions and other sales where they only accept cash have been being robbed by these laws for years (think storage wars etc.) the claim by this forfeiture nonsense has always been "you have no need to posses more than x (in most cases $500ish) unless you plan to use it for an illegal purpose".
Anyone who has been to these legal auctions selling surplus etc. legal goods knows one auction alone could cost thousands and they do not take checks or credit cards especially from out of state customers.
Abolish civil asset forfeiture!
Abolish qualified immunity!
This is supposed to be a "free" country right?
This is a good story, thanks whomever sent this in.
*whoever
Terry
Whoms'tever
Whoms'tever's, positive.
Shouldn't the prosecutor be done and lose their bar license?
I would think so. But who’s going to challenge this? Nobody is holding anyone accountable anymore. Someone would have to bring this to someone’s attention that doesn’t have ties to this DA.
@@RadDadisRad Breaches lots of codes of ethics.
Why didn't the judges point this out?
Only in a rational world.
P.S. We don't live in a rational world.
💯 unconstitutional
They don’t want it to go to the Supreme Court, they aren’t sure how the court will rule, not willing to take their chances.
Do you have rights if you cannot afford the court costs to defend them?
Absolutely not! Those people are targeted!
I pretty sure you can easily make the case that most of the money in anyone's pocket/bank was also used for crimes at some point in its circulation...
I remember a report stating that "average" currency usually tested positive for cocaine, and other drugs, as well as feces. Dirty money, in more ways than one...
Or will be.
Again, why are they searching a car that was pulled over for illegal tint?
I know this was rhetorical but they search every car they can. They are looking for cash first and drugs second. Police departments get to share confiscated money and property. I have seen Police in Louisiana drive Mercedes paid for by seized money. You are lucky to get thru LA on I 10 without getting pulled over and searched.
Its been upheld by the US Supreme Court because we don't have courts that care about constitutional rights.
Apparently we have property rights, but property has no rights to defend itself... this has always blown my mind about our criminal government
*Who thinks the Government is NOT at war with the pesky Citizens?*
not me.
Implied intention goes hand-in-hand with implied consent...
I think it is of value to mention that Pro Bono does not actually mean "for free" but actually Pro bono is short for the Latin phrase pro bono publico, which means "for the public good." This is especially important in this sort of case where the precedent is actually a much bigger issue than righting an obvious wrong.
pro bono, when talking about lawyers, means for free. Most law firms do it because they have to. Nothing "especially important" about it.
@@ellisjk1409 That such an important principle has devolved into corporate charity is a failing of the modern legal system.
I wonder how a citizen's arrest of an officer attempting to "steal" thousands of dollars in "civil asset forfeiture" would work out
Interesting hearing arizona stories. Another great video
That one always got me. Law says committing a crime or about to commit a crime. How tf do you know I'm about to commit a crime? Steve...your thoughts?
Reminds me of the story where the defendant wanted the female prosecutor arrested for prostitution "because she had the equipment which could be used for prostitution."
Cop waving his hand like Yoda using the force "you will commit a crime in the future" "you're under arrest"
●●● Asset forfeiture is one reason why I own and drive a 1994 vehicle - complete with extensive Florida sunburnt paint.
That, AND, why I don't drive around with 10's of thousands of dollars. LOL
Somehow I think that asset forfeiture is not the only reason you dont drive around with that much money. Lol
There's zero chance the current US Supreme Court would get this right.
Thanks
I was om vacation several years ago in Vancouver B.C I was watching the news the story came on about a man that had been serving time in eastern Canada and was being released so he got permission to go to Vancouver he even had an approved residence to stay at. So the big day comes and he boards a bus for Vancouver he steps off the bus to waiting police to rearrest him and their reason for doing so future crimes they felt that he will most likely reoffend.
Years ago,. there was a news story about a group of parents belonging to some religious cult. They threw their children into the ocean, because their "prophet" foretold that these children would grow up to be criminals. So whaddaya know, these sweet parents protected us all from future criminals! I think the government authorities stepped in and threw the parents in jail to protect society from the parents' future crimes. The latter action was probably more effective at crime prevention.
A government official's assumption is NOT a reason to violate property rights. Especially if that decision can be of direct benefit to that official! OBVIOUS US Const. violation!
If your boss in the office gave the same coercive choices that the legal system does he would lose his job as an immoral monster. This is why you should only be charged with the most applicable crime. Bargaining side crimes and punishments corrupts the system.
Let's seize all the money in the bank accounts of every congressperson, every judge, and every police officer, because that money COULD be used in a future crime.
I wonder if those cops write you a ticket before you run a stop sign.
About 14 years ago my Son was arrested for selling pot out of his VW Westy camper van. A long hair in a VW camper sitting on the busiest corner in a small town with foot traffic coming and going. Duh! (Michigan, Steve L.)
Well the critical court date came and we were standing in the lobby as my Son was being advised/coached his Lawyer and his Mom. I stood there listening and thinking,... "Here's is my advice for you Son,.... If you wanna become a criminal you better become a Lawyer, a Judge, or a Cop first". I held my 2 cents but still chuckle about it years latter.
Ben staring at Us, through Steve's forehead, on the shelf between Tucker and Today will be Awesome plaque.
I love how you call out everyone involved. Most don't.
I don’t understand, if the government agencies know it’s unconstitutional or against the law, that do it anyway. So the courts have to rule on something already known. Then there are no consequences for them doing these things and they continue to do it.
Why are those criminals allowed to wear badges?!!! Makes me sick & dislike cops even more!
Civil forfeiture is a frightening step ....
Larry the Cable Guy said it the best " I don't care who you are "
There are certain things we all have " Done that....been there"
Everyone in the world and anywhere in the world
we all share some things to reminisce
The rose we remember
The thorns we forget
So we rely on the past
And special moments that last
Were they as tender
As we dare to remember?
Such a fine time as this
What could equal the bliss
The thrill of the first kiss
I have a checkbook. It could be seized because it might be used illegally?
"Pre-Crime" unit in action
Asset forfeiture needs to go away.
Civil assets forfeiture should only be applied once your convicted. Not before.
Let's keep voting for The Party comrades 🤠
If you ever been to Arizona, a lot of people have limo tint on their car windows.
You may one day exceed the speed limit, $200.00 fine.
Can I pass go though?
There should be more arrests and removal. I will vote for any sheriff that will keep drugs and bad people out of our town.
Still looking for the unicorn "good cop"...
Considering the conflicts of interest involved with a prosecutor being the arbiter in civil asset forfeiture proceedings, is it possible they will lose their licenses through an ethics complaint to the State Bar Association? Ignoring an obvious conflict of interest for financial gain, even if they do not directly benefit, doesn't seem to be a minor offense.
@@Milesco
That isn't the case at all. There are a lot more to ethical codes than the conflict between the lawyer and their client.
an ethical violation.
Federal judges violate the ethical codes when they refuse to recuse themselves from cases they preside over when they have a financial stake in one of the parties. That was a story only a week or so ago.
If anything, this is a worse ethical violation, as the conflict is even more obvious. The prosecutor is an employee of one of the parties. It would be like suing a company, and having one of their attorneys be the judge in your suit against the company. how blatantly unethical does it need to be?
@@Milesco
Your ideas on what constitute ethical violations is far more narrow that what the State Bar Associations have written.
A prosecutor is a lawyer. A lawyer has an ethical obligation to not have a conflict of interest towards both their client and the opposing client. The prosecutor employed by the state acting as the judge/arbitrator/whatever is creating an obvious conflict of interest that any self-respecting lawyer would know to avoid.
Department of Future Crime now in effect.
Last time I looked, theft violates our Constitutional.
Never, ever, EVER, sign ANYTHING a cop hands you. EVER. They will try to trick you into signing away everything, including your Miranda rights.
When are they going to start seizing recovered stolen cars because the car was involved in a crime?
Keep fighting the good fight my friend.
When CAF sounds like it's something out of Minority Report you know it's not right
This is why popular culture is great: It does in fact enable you to reminisce with people you don't know, because the odds are, they too know what you're reminiscing about, since the cultural touchstones in question are, as per the term, popular.
"could be used in a future crime", so could policy enforcer firearms too, so we'll confiscate those
Greed is making these agencies blind to the law
So.. at this point the couple's not getting their car back. They're just allowed to complain, and something might happen at some far distant point in the future after a huge expenditure of time and money (of theirs and others).
Another conflict of interest: have representatives and/or senators decide on redistricting.
Innocent until proven guilty!!
this happened in 2016, only now going through courts, scarry
It is time the federal judges striped the states and federal of all amunity..This pratice has gotten out of control...all laws are unconstitutional.
If you can’t have someone else’s stuff back, that should apply to the thieves (cops) also
We complain about politicians but between upholding civil asset forfeiture, inventing qualified immunity, deeming corporations as persons and money as speech, the Supreme Court has done more than their share to keep the average person defenseless from tyranny.
The cops just took possession of my shoes, saying I might Jaywalk!
100% against this civil asset forfeiture thing, but where the heck did this kid get $31K.
This is absurd, they should not be able to take anything unless the stuff they take is actual evidence. And they should not be able to keep it unless there is a conviction. They should NOT be able to seize a vehicle just because it MAY be used in a FUTURE crime. Also, they should not be able to keep cars lawfully purchase by anyone, even criminals. Once things are all said and done the vehicle should be returned to the owner. How is this crap allowed in this country?
The Arizona government is not smarter than a 5th grader.
Every government employee who has knowingly participated in this obviously wrong, kleptocratic crime against the public belongs in prison. I mean civil asset forfeiture in general, not just this case.
It's a shame that this case has so many unique wrinkles, as it may be hard to apply the precedent to a case where, say, the car was in the possession of the owner, or the police were suggesting that the property was the fruit of criminal activity (as opposed to this Minority Report nonsense about future crime).
There are some things that make it a fortunate precedent too, though. I guess we should be grateful for that, even if none of this should be happening at all.
State needs to stop with the tyranny, repay the plaintiff plus interest and compensate for inflation. I would add mental anguish/stress but I doubt the state will even come through on the first two demands.
Taxpayers of Arizona you're paying for police abusing the civil rights of citizens. Everybody should be complaining to Navajo County Arizona city manager.
But yet a person can drive their car up to your house, break into your house, load your stuff into their car, get caught with your stuff in their car. Then show up in court driving that same car to court and they do not take that car away from them to stop them from riding around breaking into other peoples home. We realllly need to rethink this.This happened at my house and when I showed up for court they showed up to court in the same car that they used to break into my house, same car, same tag, same ladies, same damaged front finder.