If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vancouver Sun)   Judge says government can't seize your motorcycle just because you drive it over the speed limit   (blogs.vancouversun.com) divider line 19
    More: Interesting, civil forfeiture, Ducati  
•       •       •

8990 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2013 at 2:00 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-07 03:22:44 PM
3 votes:
I think that if the cops seize your assets, they should be used to fund the educational system or something not cop-related.  Otherwise, there is a strong temptation to abuse power for gain.
2013-09-07 02:54:01 PM
3 votes:

theflatline: jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.

And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.


He still gets fined or has his license suspended or whatever. He just can't have his bike stolen forfeited.
2013-09-07 01:43:01 PM
3 votes:
The ruling seems reasonable.  I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse.  It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.
2013-09-07 02:14:20 PM
2 votes:
Its ok for the police break the law via avoiding presenting evidence of criminal activity to a Judge in order to take peoples stuff, but when you want to confiscate the police equipment when they violate you, well tuff shiat.
2013-09-07 02:02:47 PM
2 votes:
Dumb move Canada. How will police make all that lovely money if they can't seize property when they feel like it?
2013-09-08 04:17:03 AM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.


We've already got that -- it's called criminal forfeiture, and it's baked in to regular criminal proceedings. The idea that we needed a way for the state to seize property without the burden of proof due in a criminal proceeding is insane. There's a reason we added the 5th amendment and this property-as-a-legal-person concept of "civil forfeiture" is nothing more than an attempt to ignore those limitations.

Besides the obvious conflict of interest wherein law enforcement both makes an accusation of offense and gets to keep the proceeds of a successful suit and the differences in the burden of proof that swing things in favor of the state, there's also the issue that property used in a crime may not rightfully belong to the criminal which means that people not involved in the crime the property is accused of may lose their property to the state through no reasonable fault of their own.
2013-09-07 04:40:38 PM
1 votes:

RINO: TuteTibiImperes: The ruling seems reasonable.  I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse.  It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.

North Carolina is the only US state that requires that.


But you are forgetting how NC's law enforcement agencies are getting around the requirement.  Instead of using state forfeiture laws they simply have the feds process it and then their agency gets kicked back a portion of proceeds from the sale of the seized items.

For true seizure reform to take place, all proceeds from the sale of seized items must go into the state's general fund and also criminalize any state agency from taking funds from a federal forfeiture under federal laws.
2013-09-07 03:57:36 PM
1 votes:

Phil Moskowitz: BullBearMS: Phil Moskowitz: Civil forfeiture law is probably some of the most despicable parts of the legal system in North America, including the monstrous drug law.

I put it right up there with paramilitary SWAT teams serving no-knock warrants in the middle of the night.

To the wrong house.

Resulting in the murder of an innocent homeowner.

Well I was talking about actual law, but yeah, that's much worse.


Well, that's a pretty specific example of what goes wrong with no-knock warrants, but it happened within a hundred miles of my house.

A father was home sleeping with his girls in the middle of the night while his other half was at work when a SWAT team mistakenly burst into his home and gunned him down.

No-knock warrants and asset forfeiture laws are the two most retarded things to come out of the war on drugs.

They both need to go.
2013-09-07 03:29:24 PM
1 votes:
Civil forfeiture law is probably some of the most despicable parts of the legal system in North America, including the monstrous drug law.
2013-09-07 03:28:37 PM
1 votes:

Billy Bathsalt: I think that if the cops seize your assets, they should be used to fund the educational system or something not cop-related.  Otherwise, there is a strong temptation to abuse power for gain.


Some municipalities have exactly that kind of rule set up to prevent abuse.  The cops found a way around it.  They turn the assets over to the Feds, who have a revenue sharing program with local law enforcement.
2013-09-07 03:12:07 PM
1 votes:
Just two years ago, the province brought in legislation allowing for administrative forfeitures, meaning that the government doesn't have to go in front of a judge to take a suspect's property when it's worth less than $75,000. All the Civil Forfeiture Office has to do is publish a notice in a newspaper or the B.C. Gazette, and if the owner doesn't file a dispute within a set time, the property is automatically forfeited.

WTF Canada?

You used to be cool.
2013-09-07 03:06:37 PM
1 votes:

jjorsett: If you can do 200 kph on something as maneuverable as a motorcycle, how do you even get caught?


I had a friend that got caught doing like 130 in a 50 or something like that on a bike.

When the cop pulled him over he said, "Why did you stop?"
2013-09-07 02:45:22 PM
1 votes:
jayphat:

This isn't just Joe Blow doing 70 in a 65. Civil forfeiture only occurs with gross speeding in Canuckistan, 50+KPH over the limit if I recall correctly. At that speed, yes you should have your shiat confiscated as you could easily kill someone at that speed.

You could easily kill someone at much lower speeds as well, Newton.
2013-09-07 02:44:39 PM
1 votes:

jayphat: And for those wondering, this piece of trash was doing the equivalent of 125 in a 35.


And was caught doing it 4 times

I love this bit.
""The only evidence that was before the Court of unlawful activity was that the defendant was operating the Ducati on four occasions when he exceeded the posted speed limit. There is no evidence of any behaviour of the defendant in operating the Ducati on those days other than speeding, nor is there any evidence that a pedestrian or other vehicle was at risk of harm because of the defendant's actions," Bowden wrote.

So I can break the law if no one else is on the road and no one got hurt.  I am only guilty if someone got hurt.  And I can do it more than once.
2013-09-07 02:30:21 PM
1 votes:
So I guess he doesn't want a pickle.
2013-09-07 02:24:14 PM
1 votes:

brantgoose: Oh, good. Everybody gets to keep their cars, SUVs, pickups, etc. Because let's face it, everybody but your grandparents speed. And your grandparents are the dangerous drivers. They cause road rage for miles behind them.

As an environmentally concerned Canadian, I am rather of two minds on this, but hey, I guess it is a good thing, like keeping the lights on. Canada is a country with many tough climates and we need all the power we can get. You can't walk except in Big City cores. A car is as necessary to life as coffee and doughnuts. You'd freeze your brass monkeys off without it (Vancouver excepted).


This isn't just Joe Blow doing 70 in a 65. Civil forfeiture only occurs with gross speeding in Canuckistan, 50+KPH over the limit if I recall correctly. At that speed, yes you should have your shiat confiscated as you could easily kill someone at that speed.
2013-09-07 02:14:53 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The ruling seems reasonable.  I'm somewhat against civil forfeiture in general, it just seems like it's open to too much potential abuse.  It should really require a criminal conviction and a ruling from a judge for you to lose your property.

I do hope this guy loses his license for a while though, driving around at 3x the speed limit on a motorcycle is going to get somebody killed.


North Carolina is the only US state that requires that.
2013-09-07 02:11:05 PM
1 votes:
Oh, good. Everybody gets to keep their cars, SUVs, pickups, etc. Because let's face it, everybody but your grandparents speed. And your grandparents are the dangerous drivers. They cause road rage for miles behind them.

As an environmentally concerned Canadian, I am rather of two minds on this, but hey, I guess it is a good thing, like keeping the lights on. Canada is a country with many tough climates and we need all the power we can get. You can't walk except in Big City cores. A car is as necessary to life as coffee and doughnuts. You'd freeze your brass monkeys off without it (Vancouver excepted).
2013-09-07 01:34:32 PM
1 votes:
Let's hope tis reasonable Canadian jurisprudence makes it's way south of the border
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report