My town has a new DARE car

[kcobean]

This may be the most unpopular place to say this but...
I am a law enforcement officer, have been for many years.

That said, please don't lump all police officers together or judge them all based on the actions of a few. I'm proud of my job and I've worked hard to get to the position I'm in. I've never had to lie in court for any situation, never had to write a BS ticket or trump up a charge against anyone, there are plenty of real crimes to prosecute. I treat everyone with the same respect that I would expect for myself, my family, or anyone else out there. I do the job not because I think it gives me some sort of power, or ego boost, but because I love the satisfaction that I get out of it. I've read this forum long enough to understand that many of you probably have a legitimate gripe against some officers or some departments, but again, don't put us all in the some category.

This is the part that may surprise you all. I completely agree that the seizure of this vehicle, or any other property in a similar situation is unwarranted and unconstitutional. The vehicle was not aquired as a result of a criminal enterprise or criminal act, therefore should not be subject to seizure. I find it especially insulting that they would "DARE" to paint an American flag on the hood . This guy should be locked up and his license revoked. It does not matter if nobody was harmed, what he did was reckless and I don't think we should wait to punish that kind of behavior until someone gets killed. If some guy sits outside your kids school firing an AK-47 into the playground full of kids but doesn't hit anybody, do you prosecute him or just let him keep shooting until he hits somebody? Yes, it's a stretch, but come on, this guy is just flat out dangerous.

We all need to be careful of what rights we are giving up. The scales are tipping in the wrong direction.

The actions of a law enforcement officer are scrutinized more than almost any other profession, and it should be that way. But, stereotyping all of them together because of the actions of a few serves no purpose and will not bring about the changes that may be needed when it comes to those unprofessional individuals or departments.

Let me be the first to say that I have a TREMENDOUS amount of respect for law enforcement. I personally have never had an unpleasant or unfair experience with a LEO, and hope I never do. You guys do a dangerous job for insufficient pay, and I really believe that MOST of you are good folks who wield your authority carefully and sparingly. Every barrel has its' bad apples though, and guilt by association is human nature. Call it a hazard of your occupation.


My complaint in all of this is not that the enforcement body enforced the statute, it's that the statute was allowed to exist in the first place. The car should have been impounded until his license was re-instated, at his expense. Seizing the vehicle is effectively leveeing a $50k fine against the man. If he had committed a similar class felony not involving a vehicle, what would the fine have been? If not $50K, then this was a punishment unsuited for the crime, but even so, he should have had the option of paying the fine or forfeiting the car.

Direct from the FindLaw.com website (I know, it's not official, but...)

The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.
When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?
The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

• An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.
• An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle's trunk.
• An individual is arrested.
• Police officers enter an individual's house to place him or her under arrest.
• Police officers enter an individual's apartment to search for evidence of crime.
• Police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime.
• Police officers confiscate an individual's vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.

 

[Cop Magnet]

Are we sure this guy didn't have drugs in the car? I work in the LE world as well (federal), and from talking to friends in the same world, 99% of the time when a car gets seized, its due to drugs. This would make sense if it were the case, because it's now a DARE car.

Based on my recent readings on this thread, I'm assuming there were no drugs involved, in which case if the state law allows for seizing of property in this case, and the bill of rights says otherwise, I would think the bill of rights trump the state in this case. This is all shooting from the hip for me, as I have not gotten in depth with this topic.

One would think. But unfortunately, state and local laws often "trump" even consitutional law. Not supposed to, but they do. Ask anyone in Chicago where they keep their handgun, as protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I think the DARE thing is a deception, and reinforces the notion that there was something much more going on than there was. It's political sleight-of-hand.

 

[kcobean]

One would think. But unfortunately, state and local laws often "trump" even consitutional law. Not supposed to, but they do. Ask anyone in Chicago where they keep their handgun, as protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I think the DARE thing is a deception, and reinforces the notion that there was something much more going on than there was. It's political sleight-of-hand.

Listen to this man...he speaks the truth. The 2nd Amendment has been thoroughly trampled in Chicago, just as it has for 30 years in the District (which doesn't even have the power of "states rights"), New York, and now San Francisco too. These are my top picks of 'cities I'll never live in'. Even if I wasn't a shooting enthusiast, the message that any one of your constitutional rights can be made optional or revocable by local authority says 'stay out' to me.

And I agree....the not-so-subliminal statement made by painting the car in D.A.R.E. attire is that the car was lawfully seized as assets obtained through unlawful drug sales. Too bad some of the 'smarter kids' will look at it and go 'wow....there must be good money in drug sales, look at the kind of stuff you can buy!'

 

[Freddog11]

Sorry folks, didn't mean to imply that all of you were lumping us all together. I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of badge heavy jerks in my profession that take advantage of their position. I'm fortunate to work for a large department in a highly specialized division that absolutely does not tolerate that behavior. The guys in my division have all worked very hard to get there and wouldn't jeopardize the best position in the department with unprofessional behavior. As I said, some of the stories I've read from the far back past on this board definately gives some here reason to have a strong dislike for law enforcement officers. I'm sorry to mention you by name, but Chuck R/T 10 is certainly a case in point. He has articulately related some stories that would bitter me too. Chuck, I apologize on behalf of my profession. I had plenty of similar incidents in my younger years, I didn't get into this profession until later in life. I was quite resentful of LEOs for many years, and dedided the best way for me to try to make a change in my little part of the world was to do the job myself, with a bit more respect and integrity than I received. It certainly wasn't a money thing, I'm well educated and had a high paying corporate job for 16 years before that. Despite a 70k pay cut, I've never regretted the decision.

As for this particular story, I will say again, it ****** me off as much or more than anyone on this board. It goes against the principles I've just described and the Constitution I'm sworn to uphold and protect.

 

[TOOOFST]

I agree. What is worse 180 in a 65 or 127 in a 35? How many people on this board have shown their GPS readings or bragged about "opening it up?" It just doesn't rise to the level of seizing someone's (expensive) property. No one was killed or hurt. It should result in a jail sentence, fine , and community service. I hope the driver is suing to get his car back, with damages due to the jacked up paint job. Some ****** Barney Fife is probably going to wreck it anyway.

DrDJ

Maybe the only mistake was getting caught.
If you can't get away at that speed you shouldn't own a viper

Totally should be spanked for the 35 zone, 8 to 80 blind crippled and
crazy are hanging out on those streets.

 

[Cop Magnet]

You must be registered for see images attach

I measure that as 4000 ft between 135th st and the school (arrow, per yogibayer) using my precision tip-of-the-pen-on-the-screen method. That guy either has some serious mods or a really bad lawyer to get nailed at 127 in less than a 1/4 mile.

Seriously, Plainfield and the surrounding area are pretty rural. That road is dry as a bone and just as straight. Until the subdivision at the end, there is nothing and you have a clear view all the way down. This is Illinois, and there are no hills to speak of.

If I turned on that road, I would probably have jammed the pedal too. All of you guys who say it's insane (but have hit those speeds on any public road), have to keep it in context. That being said, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If I do open it up like that, I am fully prepared for the ticket. Losing my car, no. That's way beyond reasonable.

 

[QUICKV10]

You must be registered for see images attach

I measure that as 4000 ft between 135th st and the school (arrow, per yogibayer) using my precision tip-of-the-pen-on-the-screen method. That guy either has some serious mods or a really bad lawyer to get nailed at 127 in less than a 1/4 mile.



if I'm reading this correctly, you say he had 4,000 feet to get to 127 then say 127 mph in a quarter mile. A quarter mile is 1,320, so if he had 4,000 feet roughly 3/4 of a mile thats plenty of room to it +127 and back to zero

 

[cornfish]

This is mentioned at the end of the video by the way.. I just thought I would share..

http://jalopnik.com/cars/whiter%2C-not-just-brighter%21/spy-photos-porsche-911-gt2-now-with-video-272430.php

 

[AFL in NJ]

Freddog11,

You are completely correct, there are jerks in any profession and I have friends who are police officers and most are great guys, on and off the job. I believe that the thanklessness associated with being a good officer must be one of the hardest things to deal with when meeting the public at work...especially after that person may have had a brutal experience with one of those bad apples.

I would be the first to stop an assist an officer if I saw him/her in trouble, however I'm very mouthy when it comes to being picked on by those bad apples and I know at least one State Police officer who can't wait to give me another BS ticket for Careless Driving. Someday I'll likely meet that officer when he's off the clock and I hope that I have the strength not to verbally berate him for mistreating me a few years ago.

I still believe in this case that the prosecutor had more to do with the seizure than the officer Marzetta who was just shooting off his cocky mouth.....I guess we'll get more details as this thread progresses.

Regards,
Aaron

 

[BoeingMan]

Long thread, Read about half of it.

Pretty shameful speeding as he did for the posted speed limit. More disgusting though, is the seizing of the guys property.

 

[Cop Magnet]

I measure that as 4000 ft between 135th st and the school (arrow, per yogibayer) using my precision tip-of-the-pen-on-the-screen method. That guy either has some serious mods or a really bad lawyer to get nailed at 127 in less than a 1/4 mile.



if I'm reading this correctly, you say he had 4,000 feet to get to 127 then say 127 mph in a quarter mile. A quarter mile is 1,320, so if he had 4,000 feet roughly 3/4 of a mile thats plenty of room to it +127 and back to zero

I saw that but was going to let it go as the thread had died You are correct, of course, and my math is way off. It certainly DOES look like plenty of room to get up that fast and stop. Again, the road looks like a dream road for a flat out run, the subdivision (and school) at the end notwithstanding.

 

[Venomiss]

This is what Janet wrote back to me this morning. Watch the papers for those in the area! Sounds like it will include more details. I am wondering what his license was suspended for in the first place before the seizure.

Hi Mary,
I wrote a story on the state seizure law, including more details on the Plainfield case, which was supposed to run in the paper over the weekend. It was bumped because of the Christopher Vaughn story, which broke on Saturday. I’m not sure when it’ll be published. Hopefully tomorrow!

Janet

 

[slaughterj]

Listen to this man...he speaks the truth. The 2nd Amendment has been thoroughly trampled in Chicago, just as it has for 30 years in the District (which doesn't even have the power of "states rights"), New York, and now San Francisco too. These are my top picks of 'cities I'll never live in'. Even if I wasn't a shooting enthusiast, the message that any one of your constitutional rights can be made optional or revocable by local authority says 'stay out' to me.

And I agree....the not-so-subliminal statement made by painting the car in D.A.R.E. attire is that the car was lawfully seized as assets obtained through unlawful drug sales. Too bad some of the 'smarter kids' will look at it and go 'wow....there must be good money in drug sales, look at the kind of stuff you can buy!'

There is a bright spot though regarding DC gun laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[Newport Viper]

The car looks great! Any other pics of it?

 

[kcobean]

There is a bright spot though regarding DC gun laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

Yep, a major step in the right direction...I think the case will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, though. Hope the decision stands.

 

[kcobean]

The car looks great! Any other pics of it?

I'm sure the 'previous' owner of the car doesn't think so.

 

[TheMeat]

I have read this entire thread and find it amusing that some of the readers believe that the Viper was seized only due to the fact that the driver was speeding. That is not why it was seized. The vehicle was seized due to its use during the commision of a FELONY. What FELONY some of you may ask? Fleeing from a law enforecement officer. Under Ohio state law 2921.331, this offense is normally a misdemeanor crime until The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.
"The arrest was made on an afternoon in March 2006. Marzetta chased the joy rider north from 135th to 127th Street, where the Viper swerved left around two cars at the intersection and turned right.The Viper weaved in and out of an industrial park before the driver hit Weber Road traffic and tried to hide in a nearby parking lot." A clear attempt to elude.



If the above description of events is accurate, I do not believe the excuse of "I didn't see the red/blue lights behind me because I was traveling at 127mph" would work. The above description also covers probable cause,IMHO, for a substantial risk of serious physical harm therefore making this offense a felony in Ohio. If ya dont like it, don't move there or vote to change it. (If all of this actually occurred in Ohio, my point would be valid!!) see copmagnet's post below.

One more item that was laughable upon reading it was the implication of judges believing everything that is presented in court by the law enforcement officer. The flaw to this statement is the fact that some judges are prior DEFENSE attorneys.


----> Isn't it a great place. We can discuss this incident openly on a public forum without fear of government chastisement?

 

[TheMeat]

Painting it in DARE colors is a ruse to link the presence of the vehicle to some kind of drug crime, which is completely untrue.

I see local law enforcement in my area have a H2 that is used for recruitment purposes. Is this a ruse to link the vehicle to the type of salary you will be earning once you are employed with this department? I think not.

I do think that the department seized the H2 and thought "hey, this vehicle has a high profile nature and would make a Sh**y under cover car but, it could draw alot of attention for our recruitment of new officers." Now that Nissan Altima and Dodge Stratus that was seized, say hello to the auction or assigned under cover duty. Perhaps Plainfield had a similar thought process in deciding what to do with the Viper.

 

[Cop Magnet]

I think it is more amusing that anyone who "read the entire thread" thinks this occured in Ohio.

The incentive to seize a "high profile" vehicle that can be used for DARE education or police recruitment is different than just another Stratus going to undercover work or to the auctioneer. If this were a 127 MPH case involving any other car, I doubt the locals would have fought so hard to keep it. This makes the concept of equality under the law moot. This is where the problem is. I've said it enought times, so I'll quit now.

 

[GR8_ASP]

I continue to agree with cop magnet. Just because it was used in a felony it should not be subject to seizure. Are all objects used in a felony subject to seizure? No. Nor should the be. The ONLY time I agree with seizure is where it is the PRDUCT of the felony. That is drug money used to buy ...

Seizure is not a penalty. There are specific laws in place to provide for penalty (fine, jail, etc). Our founding fathers spoke strongly anout unreasonable search and seizure. This fits that in my book.

 

[TheMeat]

I think it is more amusing that anyone who "read the entire thread" thinks this occured in Ohio.

You're right. I have no idea where I got Ohio from. So much for my leg to stand on in this discussion.

Equality under the law seems to me that it does not matter whether you are driving a $500 Toyota Camry or a $50K Viper. If you use a vehicle during the commision of a felony, vehicle is seized.

 

[TheMeat]

I continue to agree with cop magnet. Just because it was used in a felony it should not be subject to seizure. Are all objects used in a felony subject to seizure? No. Nor should the be. The ONLY time I agree with seizure is where it is the PRDUCT of the felony. That is drug money used to buy ...

Seizure is not a penalty. There are specific laws in place to provide for penalty (fine, jail, etc). Our founding fathers spoke strongly anout unreasonable search and seizure. This fits that in my book.

And I can see your point and agree with it to an extent. But, lets say a child molester uses his van to sexually asault various victims. Should this van be stored for him and waiting for his release from prison? I say no, seize the thing and burn it with the MF'er in it!! I know this is not nearly the same as fleeing from police but the two crimes are both felonies in which a vehicle was used.

 

[GR8_ASP]

In the child molester case I see the anger, but seizure is still unwarranted. I very strongly believe in property rights of the individual. Even a felon has property rights. We do not seize all property for convicted felons, nor should we.

The only case I agree with seizure is when it is the product of a felony or if it was used as a weapon in a felonious act, of which possession of the weapon itself cannot constitute the felony. I cannot conceive of a car being the weapon in this case. But if he had intention to commit a felony and the car was the intended weapon (say intentionally driving over someone), then seizure may be appropriate.

I am just very conservative when it comes to property rights and claims by the state for seizure. Too easy to expand for personal gain.

 

[Venomiss]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/456327,4_1_JO05_SEIZE_S1.article
Janet finally wrote me back!!!
This is the article that ran on July 5th about the state seizure law with a few more details about the D.A.R.E. Viper and what events happened at the scene. I didn't know if anyone saw this in Illinois. Interesting.

 

[V10SpeedLuvr]

Even a felon has property rights. We do not seize all property for convicted felons, nor should we.

I think we can all agree that its different degrees of felons. 127mph in a 35mph? Yawn, wake me when he shifts to 4th. Now as for "real" felons (murderers, rapists, child molestors, repeat DUI drivers, etc) should we seize their personal property? Well, yes. But, hopefully they've already been put to death and wont know it anyway. The statement we should burn the child molestors van with him in it is very accurate. I would just hope he burns slow and feels every bit of it. To say "real" felons have property rights goes against everything I believe in. To say "real" felons have ANY rights goes against everything I believe in. When it comes to criminals who commit heinous acts, I'm probably one of the more cold hearted people here. When I heard two thuggs walked in a Subway to rob it and a retired Marine put a bullet in both of them, I laughed. Hard. I dont give a damn about "real" felons. The only right they have is the right to be on the business end of a .357 magnum with a person with a itchy trigger finger on the other end. This guy doesnt appear to be a real criminal with the facts that have come out. He broke the speedlimit in a Viper....oh, the horror. He then ran from the cop, a definite no-no, but still not worthy of taking his car. Give him a ticket, a night or 2 in the slammer and lets get back to going after real criminals.

 

[ViperBran]

I'm sure if he pulled over, and didn't try to elude police, he would still be driving his Viper today.

 

[Venomiss]

In the article they talk about how they filed 197 of the seizure cases and are on track this year for 240 cases. Can you say scary?..From the article also....

The seizure process involves multiple law enforcement agencies and can take months to complete, said Assistant State's Attorney Dant Foulk. Once an arresting agency decides to pursue a vehicle seizure, it files paperwork with the county sheriff.

The sheriff reviews the case and decides whether the seizure should move forward. If so, the sheriff files paperwork with the state's attorney and sends notice to the vehicle's owner and any lien holders. If the state's attorney decides to pursue the case, the office will file a civil lawsuit to seize the vehicle -- and will again notify the owner and lien holders. A civil trial will follow, and the final decision on the seizure is made by a judge.

In other words if they really want your car it can be had....and they paid $20,000 for the viper-must have wanted that baby bad.

 

[GR8_ASP]

Thqnks for the update. Felony is too low of a barometer. Clearly serious crimes that use the vehicle in their commision should qualify. But not all felonies and definitely not if the property was not used in the commision of the felony.

 

[kcobean]

In the article they talk about how they filed 197 of the seizure cases and are on track this year for 240 cases. Can you say scary?..From the article also....

The seizure process involves multiple law enforcement agencies and can take months to complete, said Assistant State's Attorney Dant Foulk. Once an arresting agency decides to pursue a vehicle seizure, it files paperwork with the county sheriff.

The sheriff reviews the case and decides whether the seizure should move forward. If so, the sheriff files paperwork with the state's attorney and sends notice to the vehicle's owner and any lien holders. If the state's attorney decides to pursue the case, the office will file a civil lawsuit to seize the vehicle -- and will again notify the owner and lien holders. A civil trial will follow, and the final decision on the seizure is made by a judge.

In other words if they really want your car it can be had....and they paid $20,000 for the viper-must have wanted that baby bad.

I wonder how the local citizens would feel if they knew that 20,000 of *their* tax dollars went towards "buying" the local PD a sports car that a)they can use to represent a program that ultimately has nothing to do with the conditions under which the car was seized, and b) will probably sit in a parking lot about 300 days out of the year.

Simply apalling. It would really piss me off to know that my local .gov had such a budget surplus and this is how they chose to use it.

 

[agentf1]

I think we can all agree that its different degrees of felons. 127mph in a 35mph? Yawn, wake me when he shifts to 4th. Now as for "real" felons (murderers, rapists, child molestors, repeat DUI drivers, etc) should we seize their personal property? Well, yes. But, hopefully they've already been put to death and wont know it anyway. The statement we should burn the child molestors van with him in it is very accurate. I would just hope he burns slow and feels every bit of it. To say "real" felons have property rights goes against everything I believe in. To say "real" felons have ANY rights goes against everything I believe in. When it comes to criminals who commit heinous acts, I'm probably one of the more cold hearted people here. When I heard two thuggs walked in a Subway to rob it and a retired Marine put a bullet in both of them, I laughed. Hard. I dont give a damn about "real" felons. The only right they have is the right to be on the business end of a .357 magnum with a person with a itchy trigger finger on the other end. This guy doesnt appear to be a real criminal with the facts that have come out. He broke the speedlimit in a Viper....oh, the horror. He then ran from the cop, a definite no-no, but still not worthy of taking his car. Give him a ticket, a night or 2 in the slammer and lets get back to going after real criminals.

Nice post Chad, these were my thought also. I think we have all broke the speed limit at one time or another and I am sure a good percentage of us have gone over 120mph but do not think it warrants taking our cars. Look at the guy who ran in his Corvette, they shot him dead.

I hate to make judgement calls with having all the evidence in front of me but both of these cases seemed to have the outcome be a bit severe.