Confiscated hot rod sells for $19,500

How pissed off do you suppose his wife was.?.... drunk fool deserves what he gets.... he keep taking chances till it cost him huge....

If he was driving a 91 honda, would they still have confiscated it? The court system would go broke if everyone quit drinking and driving.

Actually the cops STOLE the vechicle in a direct act against the 4th amendment.

Cops lie and they steal as well what a gang (in blue).

jim wrote:

If he was driving a 91 honda, would they still have confiscated it? The court system would go broke if everyone quit drinking and driving.

I don't think its a good idea to give the money from confiscations to the agency that is doing the confiscation. This provides a positive feedback loop that has the potential for almost unlimited abuse in the wrong hands.

Pragmatist is spot on right. If this type of confiscation is to occur the funds should be placed elsewere. While driving under the influence is an obvious no no, it apparently makes more sense to do it in a 91 Honda (as pointed out by Jim) vs anything with reasonable value.

gistapos

What exactly did he take from the people of Minnesota that Minnesota should be able to help themselves to his possesions?

Newday wrote:

What exactly did he take from the people of Minnesota that Minnesota should be able to help themselves to his possesions?

By driving drunk, he put the people of Minnesota at risk. By confiscating something of tangible value, he might think twice before doing it again. On the other side, the group responsible for the confiscation might just start taking law enforcement trips to conventions in Hawaii and New Zealand on the confiscated money. The drug/alcohol laws on confiscated property just mean that the law enforcement that is getting to use the money will abuse the process to get more if it benefits them directly like it currently does.

Another example of the legal system providing for itself. There is no one watching the chicken coup but the fox. Look at the gang task force for another example.

nice job pigs. take something from a hard working citizen to line your pockets with.

Hello people... this is the guys 5TH drunk driving offense!!!! Cars get confiscated when people continue to break the law. He isn't the first person to lose a vehicle after being a habitual offender. He is just lucky that he only lost his vehicle, and didn't cause an accident in which someone could have lost their life.

It is pretty simple, don't drink and drive.

ljs1014 wrote:

Hello people... this is the guys 5TH drunk driving offense!!!! Cars get confiscated when people continue to break the law. He isn't the first person to lose a vehicle after being a habitual offender. He is just lucky that he only lost his vehicle, and didn't cause an accident in which someone could have lost their life.

I am not arguing against the loss of the car for a habitual drunk driver, I am arguing against giving the proceeds from confiscated personal property to those in charge of enforcing these statutes. You don't see a problem with that?

madd should be blamed for this

Newday wrote:

What exactly did he take from the people of Minnesota that Minnesota should be able to help themselves to his possesions?

It wasn't and isn't his possesion. He forfeited it.

Want to end drunk driving all together? Confiscate the vehicle on the first offense. Sure, some people have an extra $15K laying around for their first offense but replacing a car is a pain...

Take a cab wrote:

It is pretty simple, don't drink and drive.

Unfortunately, until the penalty for DWI is severe enough, people are going to take their chances on the road. Happens every night.

Pragmatist wrote:

<quoted text>I am not arguing against the loss of the car for a habitual drunk driver, I am arguing against giving the proceeds from confiscated personal property to those in charge of enforcing these statutes. You don't see a problem with that?

Why NOT use the money to buy cameras and other equipment that law enforcement needs, or to pay for legal expenses? Would you rather your taxes were raised to pay for these expenses? Confiscating vehicles is not a new concept, it has been happening for years. It isn't a new "fad" someone just came up with last year.

ljs1014 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why NOT use the money to buy cameras and other equipment that law enforcement needs, or to pay for legal expenses? Would you rather your taxes were raised to pay for these expenses? Confiscating vehicles is not a new concept, it has been happening for years. It isn't a new "fad" someone just came up with last year.

I know that, but putting the mice in charge of the cheese is a bad idea. If that is the way you want it, then law enforcement should have to go through the county commissioner's office(for the sheriff), the state treasurer's office(for the state), or the mayor's office(for city) to get spending approved. There have been abuses of this system since its inception. Period.

Where have all of you been? They have been confiscating vehicles for too many DWI's for years. Also, if you are caught driving drunk with no license, I believe that also an automatic forfeiture of the car you are in. Moral of the story. Don't let drunks drive your car. The offense that occurs before the forfeiture also awards you a set of nice white license plates, which allow cops to stop your car without cause. So he knew the possible consequences. And yes, they will seize anything from a $200 beater to a $100,000 car. Think of all the tax dollars being saved. Since Minnesota insists on being a catch and release state, it's good to see they've found something other than my wallet as a source to pay for all of that.