Law & Justice: August 2006 Archives
I agree with Clayton Cramer that civil forfeiture laws are unjust and scary.
I am pretty hostile to civil forfeiture of property--where the government seizes something, and claims that it was used in a criminal act. Unlike a criminal prosecution, where the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty that a person has committed a crime, with civil forfeiture, the government grabs the property, and says, "We only need a preponderance of evidence. If you disagree, you are welcome to file suit and try and prove us wrong."In many California counties, if the police seize a gun--even if they later realize that there was no crime involved--they simply will not return a gun to the owner. You want a $400 gun back? Go hire a lawyer, and spend thousands of dollars trying to get it back. ...
There's a little problem, however: what if the police are wrong? I remember seeing a disturbing news show some years ago in which they interviewed a lot of people who had money taken from them by the police under civil forfeiture who were clearly not criminals. One of them was an orchid grower. It is a cash business. He had no criminal history. He broke no laws. The government didn't even make a small attempt at charging him with any crime--and he was out $9,000. They had a bunch of cases like this, where there was simply no reason to assume that this person was criminal.
Even worse, the civil forfeiture thing often leads to raids that make no sense--and get people killed. One of them was Donald Scott, shot to death in his Malibu home some years ago because the National Park Service wanted his land--and those accommodating sorts at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department flew over his land, decided that he was growing marijuana there, and did a (depending on who you believe) no-knock raid--and shot him to death. (By the way, there's gobs of documentation on this case--I picked that particular account, but I read many of the news stories at the time about it. The only thing that made this one special is that Mr. Scott was rich--usually the victims of these crimes are poor or middle class.)
That's why it's important to never allow drugs or other illegal substances into your car or onto your property. Cops can seize anything they want, even if the owner isn't the one involved with illegal activities.
A South Carolina woman has been arrested for hosting sex and alcohol parties for teenagers, but take careful note of the difference between the complaint against her and the actual charge. Of the father who reported the situation to the police:
Deputies say the investigation began August 14 when a parent said her [sic] daughter had gotten drunk and had her first sexual experience at one of these parties."It really scares me that it's not that our kids have to worry about their peers anymore, it's they have to worry about other parents," said Rick Eaton, the father who went to police when he learned about the parties. "From my daughter has told me that Ms. Patricia has taken another woman's child up to get her birth control pills. Her excuse was that these teenagers having sex in her home was out of her control, which is wrong. You've got to have more control in your home than that."
The father here was concerned that his daughter was being given drugs and encouraged to have sex, which is certainly a horrific situation. But what did the police actually arrest 46-year-old Patricia Hartwell for?
"Hartwell's arrest should send a strong message to other adults who provide alcohol and drugs to children in Lexington County," [Sheriff James] Metts said in a written release. "We have zero tolerance in Lexington County for the transfer of alcohol to minors, and adults who provide alcohol to children will be vigorously investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed under South Carolina law."
Apparently Hartwell would have been in the clear if she'd restricted her parties to sex and drugs! Personally, I find it far more disturbing that young kids are being encouraged to have sex and take birth control than that they're drinking alcohol. There's no doubt that drinking is a serious problem for some teens and adults, but c'mon, it's obvious that the sexual aspect of this situation was by far the most harmful. Unfortunately, one of the legacies of the abortion industry is teenage sexual promiscuity (it's good for business!), and there aren't many ways left to legally restrain it.
Hopefully you've been keeping up with The Daily Spork's three part series covering the murder of Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen, including an interview with one of the couple's childhood friends. Yesterday was the second anniversary of their deaths, so go read DeoDuce's wrap-up.
You may be interested, as I was, to read about some technical real estate terms that have drastic implications for how we own our property. (Of course, take everything from Wikipedia with a grain of salt.)
- Allodial title: It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations. Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever.
- Fee simple: It is the most common way real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.
- Fee tail: It describes an estate of inheritance in real property which cannot be sold, devised by will, or otherwise alienated by the owner, but which passes by operation of law to the owner's heirs upon his death.
- Adverse possession: In real estate common law, adverse possession is a means of acquiring title to another's real property without compensation, by, as the name suggests, holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights. Adverse possession requires the actual, visible, hostile, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession of the property, and some jurisdictions further require the possession to be made under a claim of title or a claim of right.
- Leasehold estate: An ownership interest in land in which a lessee or a tenant holds real property by some form of title from a lessor or landlord. ... Various forms of leasehold estates exist, or have existed in the past. Ancient forms no longer used include socage and burgage. There are four modern leasehold estates — the tenancy for years, the periodic tenancy, the tenancy at will, and the tenancy at sufference.
- Life estate: common law is an estate in real property that ends at death. Although it is technically a tenancy (the holder is called a life tenant), it is treated the same as a fee simple with respect to the constraints upon its use for the duration of the estate. Since it ends at death, and the owner of the life estate cannot leave it to his heirs or convey a larger interest in the land than what the owner actually owns, a life estate is not an estate of inheritance.
- And then there's a ton to learn about easements.
- The rule against perpetuities may also be of interest.
As flawed as the American justice system is, at least we don't bring live bombs into court as evidence.
A court in Bangladesh trying suspected Islamic militants was thrown into panic when five live bombs were produced as exhibits during the hearing of a case.The discovery prompted the presiding judge to order a hasty adjournment as the court was evacuated.
A security force officer said that he got the "shock of his life" when he realised that the bombs were live.
Officials blame police for not defusing the devices before coming to court. The police say they were not asked to.
Must be a union thing.
(HT: RV.)
