-Caveat Lector- Folks... We need to start worrying about things like this. If they found dope in the car then that's one thing; but, this is assuming that the system is based on a notion that the cops aren't corrupted. If they want to take your property then they've just been granted a liscense to it. Note that the decision here is based on the simple statement that "Police said the man's car was subject to forfeiture because it had been used to deliver drugs several months earlier."........."The seizure was based on the officers' belief that White's car had been used several months earlier to deliver illegal drugs." Belief? I'm not saying this guy ain't guilty; all I'm saying is that now they can take your property if they BELIEVE you used it in a crime. Read the fine print!!!!! A license to steal....and who is policing the police? Nobody. Who said? Ahhh...the Police said it so it just MUST be so. Imagine this in a small town where perhaps a policeman has some sort of vendetta against you. Maybe he was off duty and you did something to alienate him. Maybe the Police Chief didn't like something you 'reportedly' said about him at the coffee shop. They just pull you over and throw a chunk of some 'illicit substance' into you back seat et voila! They now have a car! That will teach you to mess with the law, buddy. Or....let's just BELIEVE that he had Drugs in the car. Yeah, that's the ticket!! "Book `em, Danno". If someone does wrong then make them pay. There is an easy and simple way to take care of criminals and treacherous people. Eliminate them. It's a great deterrant. BUT...Belief? They can take your property because they BELIEVE you did something? If this was OJ Simpson, Jim Guy Tucker or anyone who knows Ed Meese or George Bush then they'd be off scott free. Does the term "SS" mean anything to you? People, we need to read a little history and learn from it. America is becoming prime for things like this to happen. Read. Study. Think! When we read the papers and watch the news everyday we are reminded about the current 'state of the nation'. There is so much corruption and chicanery going on in public office, in the law enforcement agancies, in our legal system as a whole that this little 'ruling' ought to scare the **** out of all of us. *sigh* Well, back to work. Remember the Golden Rule: "The ones who have the gold make all the rules" "and the times they are a-changing...." Dylan Kilgore Trout -Coming soon to a Theatre near you!~ > -Caveat Lector- > >Ruling Allows Cops To Seize Cars > >By LAURIE ASSEO >.c The Associated Press > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police do not need a warrant to seize someone's car from a >public place under laws requiring forfeiture of property linked to crime, the >Supreme Court said today. > >The 7-2 ruling reinstated a Florida man's drug conviction based on the crack >cocaine police found in his car after seizing it without a warrant. Police >said the man's car was subject to forfeiture because it had been used to >deliver drugs several months earlier. > >The case involves seizures made under a Florida law that allows forfeiture of >property used in committing drug crimes. A similar federal law provides for >forfeiture of vehicles used in transporting illegal drugs. > >The ruling reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision that said the cocaine >should not have been used as evidence against Tyvessel Tyvorus White because >police did not get a warrant before seizing his car. > >The state court based its ruling on the Constitution's Fourth Amendment >protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. > >Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court today that the seizure of the car >did not violate the Fourth Amendment. > >``Although ... the police lacked probable cause to believe that ... (White's) >car contained contraband ... they certainly had probable cause to believe >that the vehicle itself was contraband under Florida law,'' Thomas said. > >Florida's lawyer, Carolyn Snurkowski, said, ``We're very happy'' with the >ruling. She said it may aid other governments with seizure laws, depending on >the details of those laws. For example, a new policy in New York City allows >police to seize the cars of people arrested for drunken driving. > >White was arrested at work in Bay County, Fla., in 1993 on unrelated charges. >After he was taken into custody, police obtained the keys to his car and took >it from his workplace parking lot. > >The seizure was based on the officers' belief that White's car had been used >several months earlier to deliver illegal drugs. Police searched White's car >and found two pieces of crack cocaine in the ashtray. > >White was charged with possessing an illegal drug, and a state judge allowed >the cocaine to be used as evidence. White was convicted and a state appeals >court upheld the conviction. > >However, the Florida Supreme Court threw out White's conviction, saying the >cocaine should not have been used as evidence because police did not get a >warrant before seizing the car. > >Getting a warrant would have created no ``undue burden'' for the police once >White was arrested and his car remained at his workplace, the Florida court >said. > >Justice Department lawyers supported the state's appeal to the Supreme Court, >saying different standards apply to seizures of property as opposed to >searches conducted without a warrant. > >The seizure of White's car without a warrant was valid so long as police had >reason to believe it was used in a drug crime, government lawyers said. Once >a car is seized, it can be searched without a warrant, they added. > >The Supreme Court ruled for the state. > >Because the police seized the car from a public place -- the parking lot of >White's employer -- the seizure did not invade White's privacy, Thomas said. > >His opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices >Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and >Stephen G. Breyer. > >Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Writing for the >two, Stevens noted that the alleged use of the car to deliver drugs occurred >more than two months before police seized the vehicle. > >Stevens said it appeared the officers simply wanted to avoid the ``hassle'' >of getting a warrant. He added, ``I would not permit bare convenience to >overcome our established preference for the warrant process.'' > >The case is Florida vs. White, 98-223. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer within 4 hours of reception. _____________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
