The decision will not halt civil forfeitures, said Wesley P. Hottot, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented the Land Rover’s owner.
“People are still going to lose their property without being convicted of a crime, they’re still going to have their property seized,” Mr. Hottot said. “The new thing is that they can now say at the end of it all, whether I’m guilty or not, I can argue that it was excessive.”
I mean, what is HAPPENING?
getting your car taken away because you don’t have a receipt readily available for your vape? Please tell me I am wrong about this.
I hear you...my rebuttal would be (and I know you are not posing an argument) is that your average Joe Vaper ain’t got money for an attorney.Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
Unanimous SCOTUS ruling, BTW.
So IDK.
Normally, these B.S. laws are used against illegal drug DEALERS. However, I'm sure there's further abuses that are for non-dealers, just possessors.I mean, what is HAPPENING?
getting your car taken away because you don’t have a receipt readily available for your vape? Please tell me I am wrong about this.
I swear, we fell into an alternate universe sometime around 1980, and it's just degrading more and more every day.
Meh. The guy escalated the fine to detainment (totally predictable). Maybe try the OUTSIDE on that one.Ya think?From the world's foremost sanctuary city:
Police detain a man for eating a sandwich on a San Francisco BART platform - CNN