Florida is using civil forfeiture law in an effort to combat motorcyclist speeding in sport. As stated in an article I have read; Law enforcement is using an old law to combat speeding by sport motorcyclists. The gist of the law is that once a Florida law enforcement officer flashes his lights to pull someone over, and if they allegedly speed, their motorcycles can be impounded because they were used in the commission of a felony, i.e., ” aggravated fugue”. and eluding”.
The article states that officers do not have to identify the person riding the motorcycle; all they have to do is get the registration information. The law allows them to seize the motorcycle instead of chasing it.
As a motorcycle and motorcycle attorney and advocate for motorcyclists’ rights, this method of cracking down on speeding drivers disturbs me on many different levels.
Before I get into my opinion on this method of law enforcement, I want to point out and reiterate that the vast majority of sport bikers are not running from the Police, nor are they going 170 miles per hour through city streets. There are some idiots speeding on city streets and canyon roads on sports motorcycles and cars too. They should be arrested for speeding. They should take their antics to a race track instead of endangering the public on public roads.
However, the method of enforcement that Florida is now employing disturbs me on many different levels. First of all, I have never supported or tolerated civil forfeiture laws because they have always seemed unconstitutional to me. They don’t pass the smell test!
A basic civil forfeiture law allows a State to seize sixteen property, money or assets from someone if it can be proven by a preponderance of evidence that the property, money or assets were used or obtained through the commission of a crime.
To prove that someone committed a crime, a state or government has to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused person committed a crime. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system.
To win in a civil case, the burden of proof is the “preponderance of the evidence.” The preponderance of the evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “greater than 50 percent chance,” etc.
Civil forfeiture laws allow states to take your property without having to prove that you actually committed a crime under the Constitution.
The United States Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation and due process of law.
Civil forfeiture laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the United States “Conservative” Supreme Court have upheld these laws as an exception to the constitutional prohibition against the government taking private property for a public purpose without just compensation by making of criminal activity and exception of proceeds of crime. The theory is that since the property was used or obtained from criminal activity, the property can be seized. There is no violation of due process because the person whose property is being taken has notice of the taking and an opportunity to be heard. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s upholding of these laws because it goes against what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution.
Another concerning issue with civil forfeiture of property under the criminal exception is that defendants do not have the right to be assigned a lawyer in a civil case; they only have this right in a criminal case.
Basically, the state can seize your property without ever proving that you committed a crime. What’s worse is that in many of these types of cases, criminal charges are never filed. These laws have resulted in large windfalls for many local, state, and even federal governments at the expense of a person who may never have been charged with a crime.
Going back to the Florida situation, what bothers me is that Florida law enforcement can impound your motorcycle without having to prove that you were riding the motorcycle or that you sped off when your lights came on. Also, how do we know if a Florida cop isn’t going to just say “the guy sped up when I turned my lights on” to start impounding motorcycles?
It’s basically your word against law enforcement and who do you think a judge or jury is going to believe?
It is my opinion that there is too much room for abuse of the system in Florida to justify taking someone’s motorcycle without first proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who owned the motorcycle was running from the police.
This new Florida tactic obviously pleases the general public who may already be biased against motorcyclists and bicyclists, but it goes further. Do you honestly think law enforcement will use this tactic only against cyclists? Hell no, they’ll start taking cars, trucks, and other motorized vehicles too. Once they prove the revenue this tactic will generate, they will promote it further.
What I’m seeing here is that the government is going crazy. The so-called conservative anti-crime fanatics are stealing our constitutional rights in droves. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against big government intrusion into our personal lives and appropriation of our constitutional rights.
So far, 10 motorcycles have been impounded in Volusia County, Florida under the new impound program according to an article published on March 11, 2007. I wonder if any of the owners have been convicted of anything?
I do not approve of sports bikers or sports car enthusiasts turning our public streets into race tracks. However, I am more afraid of the potential for government abuse of civil forfeiture laws. I wonder how many innocent men will lose their property without having done anything wrong.
By Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq. © 2007