http://www.wtsbradio.com/pages/localnews.html Thank god for juries. I hope he sues the state and gets 3 times the value of his truck. Lock people up if they break the law, but the state has no business taking property. That is a blatant conflict of interest.
Thank god for juries that find someone not guilty of DWI when he blew *** .34 *** ?! The only way his truck would have been seized if his license was ALREADY revoked for ANOTHER DWI. So he's obviously a serious drunk and a repeat offender. I wonder why the jury found him not guilty. Simply because the DRUNK said "the deputy said I could" (which I doubt happened)? At .34, I'm surprised he remembered anything from that night!
If he was found not guilty that should be the end of the story. You either are or you are not guilty- you can't be both. Anything else is a problem with the process. To the OP's larger point (...I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) government seizure of private property on scant evidence is something that should all be concerned about. If you give your coworker a ride and stop briefly at your house does the government have the right to seize your vehicle and home because she had a joint in her purse?
I can understand not liking the DWI seizure law, and if that were his only point, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I took his "thank god for juries" comment to mean he was glad the guy was found not guilty for driving while absolutely plastered. The whole seizure thing aside, the guy *was* absolutely plastered, and he drove.
The story says the deputy told him he could move his truck from one parking lot to another without being arrested ...then arrested him. I'm assuming its true since he was found not guilty. That's a dirty trick that promotes distrust of law enforcement. Any officer who behaves this way is just making the job harder for his fellow officers. And yes, my main objection is with government seizure of property. This creates a conflict of interest. In this guy's case they sold his truck before he even went to trial. Maybe someone else can explain how the state justifies such a tyrannical action.
That is what shocked me. How can it be legal to sell property that has been seized before the defendant has been guilty??? And people wonder why so many of us feel like it doesn't matter who is in office anymore, we're all going down the drain.
I honestly had no idea. Never had any sort of dealings like that. I really don't see how that can be legal, I guess it's legalized theft. :?
