Post by King Rat on Aug 4, 2006 19:45:17 GMT -6
It never ceases to amaze me that our police can seize vehicles and cash from suspected drug dealers BEFORE they are even tried. I have read in various articles that vehicles seized are almost always disposed of by the police (either selling them or using them) before the suspect ever goes to court.
Now I hate drug dealers but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? What happened to a person's right to a fair trial? Is a trial fair if the suspect is robbed by the police (because that is exactly what it is) of the cash and assets (which might otherwise be sold to raise cash) the suspect might very well need in order to hire an attorney?
How on earth could something like this ever withstand the muster of the Supreme Court?
And who will be next? I've raised this topic before (in other forums) and was usually scoffed at for saying this trend wouldn't stop with drug dealers. How long will it be before those arrested for DUI have their vehicles stolen by the police? Some months ago I heard a politician advocate that very thing. After that, how long will it be before a person stopped for speeding will have their vehicle stolen by the police? Or if you get stopped for speeding why can't the cop just take all the cash you have on your person? How is it different?
The very concept of seizing vehicles is wrong. How many times have we seen a fancy sports car with blue lights on top and "Seized in a Drug Bust" written all over it? Doesn't it seem wrong that a police force can actually gain financially from arresting a drug suspect? If a police force needs a new car all they have to do is arrest a suspected drug dealer.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Now I hate drug dealers but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? What happened to a person's right to a fair trial? Is a trial fair if the suspect is robbed by the police (because that is exactly what it is) of the cash and assets (which might otherwise be sold to raise cash) the suspect might very well need in order to hire an attorney?
How on earth could something like this ever withstand the muster of the Supreme Court?
And who will be next? I've raised this topic before (in other forums) and was usually scoffed at for saying this trend wouldn't stop with drug dealers. How long will it be before those arrested for DUI have their vehicles stolen by the police? Some months ago I heard a politician advocate that very thing. After that, how long will it be before a person stopped for speeding will have their vehicle stolen by the police? Or if you get stopped for speeding why can't the cop just take all the cash you have on your person? How is it different?
The very concept of seizing vehicles is wrong. How many times have we seen a fancy sports car with blue lights on top and "Seized in a Drug Bust" written all over it? Doesn't it seem wrong that a police force can actually gain financially from arresting a drug suspect? If a police force needs a new car all they have to do is arrest a suspected drug dealer.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
