Man does 3 months in jail and loses everything over breath mints

[trekgeezer]

Talk about injustice.


http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/20435114/detail.html

[ghouck]

Talk about injustice.

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/20435114/detail.html

The need to conduct the field test again, and if it comes up negative, that Officer has a LOT of explaining to do. How can they auction off his car before he's even tried, let alone convicted?

That city just needs to buck up and pay the man ever if the amount seems a bit outrageous. A chunk of this guy's life, not to mention his dignity was taken away, they need to pay him for that. How much time does the stress of something like that take off a person's life?

[meQal]

Sounds like someone else is fixing to be looking for a new job as well. Namely the officer who made the arrest.
I agree that this guy needs to be compensated for all he lost as well as publicly apologized to by the police and the city. While not mentioned, I wonder if race happen to play a part in this case.
As far as how they were able to sell his car, I suspect it was sold to pay for the impound lot fee. That I have heard of happening before. A person's car gets towed and after it sets on the lot for so many days it's considered abandoned by the owner and sold. I suspect that was how they were able to sell hsi car without a conviction. Doesn't make it suck any less but I doubt anything illegal was done in the sale of the car. Granted I'm pretty sure there was something illegal about his arrest which resulted int he car being impounded in the first place however.

[akiratubo]

I honestly cannot think of any way to put a non-sinister spin on the arresting officer's actions.  I'm guessing the guy was being a jerk over getting a ticket, so the officer decided to teach him a lesson.

I don't think the cop honestly thought that objects in a breathmint container, that looked like breathmints, smelled like breathmints, and the driver was sucking on like breathmints, were crack cocaine.  I don't believe that for a microsecond.

[ghouck]

While not mentioned, I wonder if race happen to play a part in this case.

That was one of the first things I thought. .

As far as how they were able to sell his car, I suspect it was sold to pay for the impound lot fee. That I have heard of happening before. A person's car gets towed and after it sets on the lot for so many days it's considered abandoned by the owner and sold. I suspect that was how they were able to sell hsi car without a conviction. Doesn't make it suck any less but I doubt anything illegal was done in the sale of the car. Granted I'm pretty sure there was something illegal about his arrest which resulted int he car being impounded in the first place however.

They say the policed department towed his car and auctioned it off, so I don't see the impound fees being an issue. They can't just take it, charge you for storing it, and sell it to pay for that. If that were true, what is stopping them from doing it to just anybody? Also, if you lose something through seizure, you can not be tried for that crime, it constitutes double jeopardy. That's happened here in Alaska, but it's a Federal Law thing. I can't remember the case law, but I'll post it when I can.

[meQal]

As far as how they were able to sell his car, I suspect it was sold to pay for the impound lot fee. That I have heard of happening before. A person's car gets towed and after it sets on the lot for so many days it's considered abandoned by the owner and sold. I suspect that was how they were able to sell his car without a conviction. Doesn't make it suck any less but I doubt anything illegal was done in the sale of the car. Granted I'm pretty sure there was something illegal about his arrest which resulted int he car being impounded in the first place however.

They say the policed department towed his car and auctioned it off, so I don't see the impound fees being an issue. They can't just take it, charge you for storing it, and sell it to pay for that. If that were true, what is stopping them from doing it to just anybody? Also, if you lose something through seizure, you can not be tried for that crime, it constitutes double jeopardy. That's happened here in Alaska, but it's a Federal Law thing. I can't remember the case law, but I'll post it when I can.

I would suspect that they held the car for a while on an impound lot before selling it. While it doesn't mention that, I figure they held it for 45 to 60 days in an impound yard somewhere before selling it. Granted I suspect someone wanted to seriously screw this guy over which is why things went the way they did.
However there is another possibility. This entire story is a hoax. Sure it sounds bad and I would not be surprised if it did happen. However something about this the more I think about it that seems like it's one of those stories just too bizarre to believe. Something might not be right and it might be the victim's account of events.

[ghouck]

As far as how they were able to sell his car, I suspect it was sold to pay for the impound lot fee. That I have heard of happening before. A person's car gets towed and after it sets on the lot for so many days it's considered abandoned by the owner and sold. I suspect that was how they were able to sell his car without a conviction. Doesn't make it suck any less but I doubt anything illegal was done in the sale of the car. Granted I'm pretty sure there was something illegal about his arrest which resulted int he car being impounded in the first place however.

They say the policed department towed his car and auctioned it off, so I don't see the impound fees being an issue. They can't just take it, charge you for storing it, and sell it to pay for that. If that were true, what is stopping them from doing it to just anybody? Also, if you lose something through seizure, you can not be tried for that crime, it constitutes double jeopardy. That's happened here in Alaska, but it's a Federal Law thing. I can't remember the case law, but I'll post it when I can.

I would suspect that they held the car for a while on an impound lot before selling it. While it doesn't mention that, I figure they held it for 45 to 60 days in an impound yard somewhere before selling it. Granted I suspect someone wanted to seriously screw this guy over which is why things went the way they did.
However there is another possibility. This entire story is a hoax. Sure it sounds bad and I would not be surprised if it did happen. However something about this the more I think about it that seems like it's one of those stories just too bizarre to believe. Something might not be right and it might be the victim's account of events.

But, if his car was impounded because of a crime, they would have to hold it as evidence. They can't charge you for THAT, and surely they can't get rid of your car, which could have evidence that helps YOU. I'd really like to hear more about this, it is possible we're only hearing one side, and they may be because it the whole story. Hard telling at this point. .

[meQal]

As far as how they were able to sell his car, I suspect it was sold to pay for the impound lot fee. That I have heard of happening before. A person's car gets towed and after it sets on the lot for so many days it's considered abandoned by the owner and sold. I suspect that was how they were able to sell his car without a conviction. Doesn't make it suck any less but I doubt anything illegal was done in the sale of the car. Granted I'm pretty sure there was something illegal about his arrest which resulted int he car being impounded in the first place however.

They say the policed department towed his car and auctioned it off, so I don't see the impound fees being an issue. They can't just take it, charge you for storing it, and sell it to pay for that. If that were true, what is stopping them from doing it to just anybody? Also, if you lose something through seizure, you can not be tried for that crime, it constitutes double jeopardy. That's happened here in Alaska, but it's a Federal Law thing. I can't remember the case law, but I'll post it when I can.

I would suspect that they held the car for a while on an impound lot before selling it. While it doesn't mention that, I figure they held it for 45 to 60 days in an impound yard somewhere before selling it. Granted I suspect someone wanted to seriously screw this guy over which is why things went the way they did.
However there is another possibility. This entire story is a hoax. Sure it sounds bad and I would not be surprised if it did happen. However something about this the more I think about it that seems like it's one of those stories just too bizarre to believe. Something might not be right and it might be the victim's account of events.

But, if his car was impounded because of a crime, they would have to hold it as evidence. They can't charge you for THAT, and surely they can't get rid of your car, which could have evidence that helps YOU. I'd really like to hear more about this, it is possible we're only hearing one side, and they may be because it the whole story. Hard telling at this point. .

Not always if the car was not considered as evidence in the crime. However it's the points you bring up that makes me wonder if the whole thing is a hoax. It does seen they were hasty to sell the car. And you have made valid points as to why it is messed up. However it seems like it might of been too hasty for it to of been a legal sale of the car but at the same time I have seen it happen with cars held on an impound lot that were legal because of impound fees. It is this haste in the supposed car sell that makes me wonder if this guy is not making up at least part of the story. As far as we know the car could of been impounded and then repossessed.

[ghouck]

If they took him to jail, they had to believe there could have been a crime committed (if they say they didn't believe there was a crime, it's unlawful arrest, making EVERYTHING they did invalid). Since the car was present, it's evidence, perhaps not for the prosecution, possibly for the defense. The prosecution can not decide the car isn't evidence for the defense, and the prosecution can not get rid of what could be defense evidence. If the police did not feel it was considered evidence, it should have been either turned over to an outside party, or, at the defense's request, entered into evidence anyways in order to preserve the integrity of that evidence. If they were to turn it over to an outside party either way, they might as well have just let the guy out and thrown all the paperwork away, because there's little chance of them getting a conviction after that. Either way, the police are to be the more responsible party, they are supposed to err on the side of a person's rights, and supposed to know the law through and through. Police procedures are set up specifically for cases like this, where the police can be throwing away defense evidence because the accused doesn't know the law as well as they do.

As far as impound fees, that's still not valid. Lets say YOU call an impound service and have your neighbor's car towed out of his own driveway. YOU are the one that did business with the agency, so YOU are responsible for the bill. In the case above, the police made the deal, the police are responsible for the bill until they prove otherwise through the courts. They can't sell HIS car to pay THEIR bill, and even if the possibility arose, it surely would have to be a reasonable amount of time given. What is especially troubling is that police have to have access to some form of impound yard that is for evidence, there's no getting around the need for secure storage for something the size of a vehicle. The key here is secure, so turning it over to just any impound lot isn't reasonable. If they used a private, bonded and secured lot, it still takes much more than some officer's word to get it moved, and no real reason to do so right away. There's no reason the vehicle couldn't have been held wherever the police hold any other evidence of that size.

No matter how you look at it, forfeiture of the vehicle can only be made if he was convicted, , and the police sure knew he'd have to go to trial or at least see a judge before that happens. Even if he DID confess, that confession still has to be entered into record before it can be acted on.

[meQal]

From reading into Florida law regarding vehicle impoundment, even looking up where vehicles were impounded for both criminal offenses and non-criminal offenses (i.e. left on the side of the road), they have the legal right to sell the car after 50 days. Odds are his car was not siezed into evidence or they would of held it. Instead it was treated in the same manner as a vehicle someone who was arrested for DUI vehicle would of been. So thus the car would of been towed to a lot owned by the private company contracted by the city to tow vehicles for them. then under Title XL Chapter 713.78 Section 6 the vehicle can be sold after a period of 50 days if the vehicle is 3 years or less in age and 35 days is the vehicle is great than 3 years of age. However the vehicle's owner may file a complaint in court after the sale if they felt the car was sold in error. Also they would be entitled to any remaining funds less 5% from sale fo the vehicle. Furthermore the vehicle owner is responsible for any fees charged for storage under Florida state law for impounded vehicles.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0713/Sec78.HTM
So while it is crappy that the guy's vehicle was sold, it was legal. The owner in this case could not be notified at his home address beccause he was nto there. Sure it was because he was being held in jail but that does not make the sale illegal under Florida law. Again it doesn't make what happen (if it did) any better but it does explain how it could of happened in a way that was legal.
The only way the car could of been considered evidence of a crime would of been if he had been arrested with an intent to disribute charge. The car would be used as evidence that he was using it to transport large amounts of an illegal substance. Since this is not the case it was impounded in the same way a DUI suspect's car would of been.

[Jim H]

More importantly, does anyone else find it BEYOND ****ed up they can jail you while awaiting test results?  How is this fair?  It's the equivalent of the old witch test: throw them in a lake, and if they float, they're a witch.  If they're not, they drown. 

Also, search and seizure stuff, especially involving drugs, is so far beyond messed up in the USA it's ridiculous (though apparently his car being towed wasn't related to this).  Some of the most unfair things happening in this country involve it.

I'm trying to find a link for the story, but I can't find it.  I remember seeing an hour long documentary about a Mexican immigrant (legal ones) family who got pulled over.  They had something like $25,000 in cash in relatively small bills.  They'd been pooling their cash together for a couple of years to buy a tractor - paying in cash for vehicles like that can get you better deals.  Being small bills and a large quantity of them, it was enough for a drug dog to smell cocaine on the money (any large amount of US currency is likely to set off a drug dog), even though nothing else was found on them.  The police seized the money and essentially let them go.

They sued, eventually won...  But they only got back about $17,000.  So basically, the police robbed them of $8,000.  That's not right.

[meQal]

More importantly, does anyone else find it BEYOND ****ed up they can jail you while awaiting test results?  How is this fair?  It's the equivalent of the old witch test: throw them in a lake, and if they float, they're a witch.  If they're not, they drown. 

Also, search and seizure stuff, especially involving drugs, is so far beyond messed up in the USA it's ridiculous (though apparently his car being towed wasn't related to this).  Some of the most unfair things happening in this country involve it.

I'm trying to find a link for the story, but I can't find it.  I remember seeing an hour long documentary about a Mexican immigrant (legal ones) family who got pulled over.  They had something like $25,000 in cash in relatively small bills.  They'd been pooling their cash together for a couple of years to buy a tractor - paying in cash for vehicles like that can get you better deals.  Being small bills and a large quantity of them, it was enough for a drug dog to smell cocaine on the money (any large amount of US currency is likely to set off a drug dog), even though nothing else was found on them.  The police seized the money and essentially let them go.

They sued, eventually won...  But they only got back about $17,000.  So basically, the police robbed them of $8,000.  That's not right.

Oh I agree the whole thing is messed up royally. However due to fears about drugs and terrorism, our civil liberties have been curtailed OFten the very laws we feel are passed to protect us end up causing really messed up things like these to happen.

[ghouck]

So basically, Florida law pretty much tramples Federal law it sounds. The idea that they can arrest you and just start getting rid of your things, even things that could be evidence to help prove your innocence is insane. A person could fight this and surely win in federal court, but it's a long time from start to result.

[meQal]

So basically, Florida law pretty much tramples Federal law it sounds. The idea that they can arrest you and just start getting rid of your things, even things that could be evidence to help prove your innocence is insane. A person could fight this and surely win in federal court, but it's a long time from start to result.

As with most questionable laws that are made by state, county, and city officials, it's often takes a federal court to rule them in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Even then it does not mean the law would be overturned or invalidated. IT could just mean a minor change in wording that would allow it to still be applied. That is why most laws are written with so many subsections and paragraphs so it's jsut wordy enough to be confusing to most people and dull as watching paint dry to read for the rest of us who are not lawyers. In fact I'm willing to bet most lawyers find it just as boring and confusing at times as the rest of us.

[Rev. Powell]

So basically, Florida law pretty much tramples Federal law it sounds. The idea that they can arrest you and just start getting rid of your things, even things that could be evidence to help prove your innocence is insane. A person could fight this and surely win in federal court, but it's a long time from start to result.

As with most questionable laws that are made by state, county, and city officials, it's often takes a federal court to rule them in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Even then it does not mean the law would be overturned or invalidated. IT could just mean a minor change in wording that would allow it to still be applied. That is why most laws are written with so many subsections and paragraphs so it's jsut wordy enough to be confusing to most people and dull as watching paint dry to read for the rest of us who are not lawyers. In fact I'm willing to bet most lawyers find it just as boring and confusing at times as the rest of us.

I found it so boring and confusing I'm not even going to read the statute you cited.

I will say that the guy must've been poor and had a court appointed lawyer (and an incompetent/overworked one at that).  Any halfway competent attorney would have had him sprung on bail in 24 hours, max.