Taurean Prince arrested

[guest81]

Prince should face the same legal consequences that anybody else does for the act committed. No more or less based on him being an NBA player or the color of his skin. If he's prosecuted any differently based on him being an NBA player such as the prosecution being afraid of backlash due to him having a measure of fame or the color of his skin that is disturbing. That said I hope those legal consequences are minimal and he can resume his profession shortly.

The question is would Prince have been pulled over on expired registration if he were white? If the officer has a habit of pulling over black people for minor offenses and not white people this matters. Likewise, whether the prosecution of this quantity of drugs is common for white people also matters? If everything is being enforced fairly and without regard to race, then race should not and will not matter. But if not, if race was a factor in the way this all went down, then it should matter, and using it is a good strategy to try and prevent Prince being charged. As to his fame, that adds pressure to the DA to get it right.

I've been pulled over for expired tabs and I'm mostly white part native. IMO yes people should be pulled over for expired tabs. Them not being renewed is a red flag that there might be something more going on. My expired tabs was just me not paying attention, but I totally deserved to be pulled over.

As for Prince having a very small amount of fame that bothers me that it puts pressure on the DA to get it right. He should get it right regardless.

Why do people need to be pulled over for expired tags? What red flags are you talking about?

[winforlose]

I showed you the statements that prove they don’t. These are part of the official record and the police would talk about them if they happened.

Vape pens are not illegal in Texas, but THC is. The cop must have been able to determine the pen had THC just by sight in order to proceed.

Not just by sight. He can do it by smell. I don't know if THC oil has any particular smell. I guess I'd fail a drug test.

I think they can just take the vape pen if they really want, like it or not, under forfeiture. Obviously, it is awful, but probably legal as things stand. So if they suspect it is related to a crime they can probably just take it regardless of if it actually is related to a crime, sadly.

How is the suspicion reasonable if the stop was not impairment related and Prince was not visibly under the influence. Moreover forfeiture requires a crime. You cannot simply go into the car and take what you want, that is a 4th amendment violation. If there was a big baggy of white powder, that satisfies both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The baggy can be taken under forfeiture because even though it isn’t illegal, it was used in the crime. Likewise, they can keep the pen as evidence of the THC oil, but they cannot remove the pen from Prince’s possession until/unless they establish a reason to do so. That reason must relate to the object without examination. You clearly don’t seem to understand how searches work under the 4th amendment. Moreover, gun owners don’t like it when they are penalized simply for having a gun. Without the gun the police cannot even enter the vehicle. If the DA wants to argue that gun possession is sufficient to justify a full search of the vehicle they will lose every Texas election going forward. Texas is a very 2nd amendment loving state.

[SO_MONEY]

The question is would Prince have been pulled over on expired registration if he were white? If the officer has a habit of pulling over black people for minor offenses and not white people this matters. Likewise, whether the prosecution of this quantity of drugs is common for white people also matters? If everything is being enforced fairly and without regard to race, then race should not and will not matter. But if not, if race was a factor in the way this all went down, then it should matter, and using it is a good strategy to try and prevent Prince being charged. As to his fame, that adds pressure to the DA to get it right.

I've been pulled over for expired tabs and I'm mostly white part native. IMO yes people should be pulled over for expired tabs. Them not being renewed is a red flag that there might be something more going on. My expired tabs was just me not paying attention, but I totally deserved to be pulled over.

As for Prince having a very small amount of fame that bothers me that it puts pressure on the DA to get it right. He should get it right regardless.

Why do people need to be pulled over for expired tags? What red flags are you talking about?

An unregistered car could be sold off book, used to commit a crime and based on model be hard to trace. I would say that is the biggest red flag or at the very least concern.

[SO_MONEY]

Not just by sight. He can do it by smell. I don't know if THC oil has any particular smell. I guess I'd fail a drug test.

I think they can just take the vape pen if they really want, like it or not, under forfeiture. Obviously, it is awful, but probably legal as things stand. So if they suspect it is related to a crime they can probably just take it regardless of if it actually is related to a crime, sadly.

How is the suspicion reasonable if the stop was not impairment related and Prince was not visibly under the influence. Moreover forfeiture requires a crime. You cannot simply go into the car and take what you want, that is a 4th amendment violation. If there was a big baggy of white powder, that satisfies both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The baggy can be taken under forfeiture because even though it isn’t illegal, it was used in the crime. Likewise, they can keep the pen as evidence of the THC oil, but they cannot remove the pen from Prince’s possession until/unless they establish a reason to do so. That reason must relate to the object without examination. You clearly don’t seem to understand how searches work under the 4th amendment. Moreover, gun owners don’t like it when they are penalized simply for having a gun. Without the gun the police cannot even enter the vehicle. If the DA wants to argue that gun possession is sufficient to justify a full search of the vehicle they will lose every Texas election going forward. Texas is a very 2nd amendment loving state.

Under forfeiture they charge the property not the person. If they suspect the vape pen could be or was used in a crime they can take it as things stand. I understand how searches work and have great understanding of the 4th Amendment... property doesn't have 4th amendment rights. I am not saying I agree with forfeiture laws but Texas has them. Forfeiture doesn't require accusing or charging someone with a crime.

Personally I think forfeiture is horrible and is a way to circumvent constitutional rights.

[guest81]

I've been pulled over for expired tabs and I'm mostly white part native. IMO yes people should be pulled over for expired tabs. Them not being renewed is a red flag that there might be something more going on. My expired tabs was just me not paying attention, but I totally deserved to be pulled over.

As for Prince having a very small amount of fame that bothers me that it puts pressure on the DA to get it right. He should get it right regardless.

Why do people need to be pulled over for expired tags? What red flags are you talking about?

An unregistered car could be sold off book, used to commit a crime and based on model be hard to trace. I would say that is the biggest red flag or at the very least concern.

Haha what? You're ridiculous man

[SO_MONEY]

Why do people need to be pulled over for expired tags? What red flags are you talking about?

An unregistered car could be sold off book, used to commit a crime and based on model be hard to trace. I would say that is the biggest red flag or at the very least concern.

Haha what? You're ridiculous man

I am a libertarian I don't even like drivers licenses, but short of revenue this is the concern of the state, they want to keep "tabs" on you. So, no, not ridiculous.

[winforlose]

I think they can just take the vape pen if they really want, like it or not, under forfeiture. Obviously, it is awful, but probably legal as things stand. So if they suspect it is related to a crime they can probably just take it regardless of if it actually is related to a crime, sadly.

How is the suspicion reasonable if the stop was not impairment related and Prince was not visibly under the influence. Moreover forfeiture requires a crime. You cannot simply go into the car and take what you want, that is a 4th amendment violation. If there was a big baggy of white powder, that satisfies both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The baggy can be taken under forfeiture because even though it isn’t illegal, it was used in the crime. Likewise, they can keep the pen as evidence of the THC oil, but they cannot remove the pen from Prince’s possession until/unless they establish a reason to do so. That reason must relate to the object without examination. You clearly don’t seem to understand how searches work under the 4th amendment. Moreover, gun owners don’t like it when they are penalized simply for having a gun. Without the gun the police cannot even enter the vehicle. If the DA wants to argue that gun possession is sufficient to justify a full search of the vehicle they will lose every Texas election going forward. Texas is a very 2nd amendment loving state.

Under forfeiture they charge the property not the person. If they suspect the vape pen could be or was used in a crime they can take it as things stand. I understand how searches work and have great understanding of the 4th Amendment... property doesn't have 4th amendment rights. I am not saying I agree with forfeiture laws but Texas has them. Forfeiture doesn't require accusing or charging someone with a crime.

Personally I think forfeiture is horrible and is a way to circumvent constitutional rights.

I have a few issues with this.

1. Any vape pen in any vehicle in the state could qualify, not to mention fire arm, needle, or so many other items. I don’t know Texas criminal procedure. I will not pretend to be an expert on criminal procedure as I only took one crim law class and procedure was only covered as one part of that. But, if this passes admissibility tests, it would be shocking. This is the kind of thing that even conservative justices would not support as it is flat out unconstitutional. To take and test the pen, they must have access to it, to gain access they must have a right to search the vehicle, they did not. They only had a right to remove the weapons. They can think whatever they want, they cannot act unless they see something clearly illegal, and a vape pen is not clearly illegal.

2. Personal property rights are covered under the fourth amendment. That is why you need a warrant to enter a private residence that you believe has stolen property or illegal property (guns, drugs, ect…) Prince‘s rights were violated the moment the pen was touched, and the evidence thereafter is inadmissible, unless the cop can establish a reasonable suspicion the pen had drugs. If the pen was not on top of the guns he cannot grab it. He just cannot. Sight or smell is the only basis for reasonable suspicion, and even then it is weighed against the context of the stop. He was not impaired, and it is not reasonable to assume he had unlawful substances in his possession. The gun retrieval was the only purpose for the officer in the car, the presumption is going to go against the cop on this.

[KGdaBom]

The question is would Prince have been pulled over on expired registration if he were white? If the officer has a habit of pulling over black people for minor offenses and not white people this matters. Likewise, whether the prosecution of this quantity of drugs is common for white people also matters? If everything is being enforced fairly and without regard to race, then race should not and will not matter. But if not, if race was a factor in the way this all went down, then it should matter, and using it is a good strategy to try and prevent Prince being charged. As to his fame, that adds pressure to the DA to get it right.

I've been pulled over for expired tabs and I'm mostly white part native. IMO yes people should be pulled over for expired tabs. Them not being renewed is a red flag that there might be something more going on. My expired tabs was just me not paying attention, but I totally deserved to be pulled over.

As for Prince having a very small amount of fame that bothers me that it puts pressure on the DA to get it right. He should get it right regardless.

Why do people need to be pulled over for expired tags? What red flags are you talking about?

People who have expired tabs if I understand correctly fall in three categories. People like me who suck at getting things like that done. People who can't afford to get stuff like that done and people with things to hide so they don't get it done. The red flag is people who have things to hide. It's possible I'm wrong about this. I had zero issue with getting pulled over for my expired tabs.

[winforlose]

I've been pulled over for expired tabs and I'm mostly white part native. IMO yes people should be pulled over for expired tabs. Them not being renewed is a red flag that there might be something more going on. My expired tabs was just me not paying attention, but I totally deserved to be pulled over.

As for Prince having a very small amount of fame that bothers me that it puts pressure on the DA to get it right. He should get it right regardless.

Why do people need to be pulled over for expired tags? What red flags are you talking about?

People who have expired tabs if I understand correctly fall in three categories. People like me who suck at getting things like that done. People who can't afford to get stuff like that done and people with things to hide so they don't get it done. The red flag is people who have things to hide. It's possible I'm wrong about this. I had zero issue with getting pulled over for my expired tabs.

I think this is fair. But the red flag is more for plates that don’t match rather than tags that are old. A lot of people probably forget at least once in their life. This isn’t a Texas thing, every state has them and unless I am missing something they are usually just a ticket and fine (if not a simple warning.)

[SO_MONEY]

How is the suspicion reasonable if the stop was not impairment related and Prince was not visibly under the influence. Moreover forfeiture requires a crime. You cannot simply go into the car and take what you want, that is a 4th amendment violation. If there was a big baggy of white powder, that satisfies both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The baggy can be taken under forfeiture because even though it isn’t illegal, it was used in the crime. Likewise, they can keep the pen as evidence of the THC oil, but they cannot remove the pen from Prince’s possession until/unless they establish a reason to do so. That reason must relate to the object without examination. You clearly don’t seem to understand how searches work under the 4th amendment. Moreover, gun owners don’t like it when they are penalized simply for having a gun. Without the gun the police cannot even enter the vehicle. If the DA wants to argue that gun possession is sufficient to justify a full search of the vehicle they will lose every Texas election going forward. Texas is a very 2nd amendment loving state.

Under forfeiture they charge the property not the person. If they suspect the vape pen could be or was used in a crime they can take it as things stand. I understand how searches work and have great understanding of the 4th Amendment... property doesn't have 4th amendment rights. I am not saying I agree with forfeiture laws but Texas has them. Forfeiture doesn't require accusing or charging someone with a crime.

Personally I think forfeiture is horrible and is a way to circumvent constitutional rights.

I have a few issues with this.

1. Any vape pen in any vehicle in the state could qualify, not to mention fire arm, needle, or so many other items. I don’t know Texas criminal procedure. I will not pretend to be an expert on criminal procedure as I only took one crim law class and procedure was only covered as one part of that. But, if this passes admissibility tests, it would be shocking. This is the kind of thing that even conservative justices would not support as it is flat out unconstitutional. To take and test the pen, they must have access to it, to gain access they must have a right to search the vehicle, they did not. They only had a right to remove the weapons. They can think whatever they want, they cannot act unless they see something clearly illegal, and a vape pen is not clearly illegal.

2. Personal property rights are covered under the fourth amendment. That is why you need a warrant to enter a private residence that you believe has stolen property or illegal property (guns, drugs, ect…) Prince‘s rights were violated the moment the pen was touched, and the evidence thereafter is inadmissible, unless the cop can establish a reasonable suspicion the pen had drugs. If the pen was not on top of the guns he cannot grab it. He just cannot. Sight or smell is the only basis for reasonable suspicion, and even then it is weighed against the context of the stop. He was not impaired, and it is not reasonable to assume he had unlawful substances in his possession. The gun retrieval was the only purpose for the officer in the car, the presumption is going to go against the cop on this.

1. Yes, any property that could possibly be involved in a crime is subject asset forfeiture this would include vape pens, any and all. But if this bothers you think about all the cash they take. Moreover I wouldn't have faith conservative justices would be against this, short of maybe Thomas if you look at the tools and latitude they have granted law enforcement. But yes, it is awful.

2. Property doesn't have constitutional rights, which is how this is a big loophole. Forcing innocent people to go to civil court to prove they are in fact innocent of crimes they were neither charged with or accused of to reclaim their property.

[winforlose]

Under forfeiture they charge the property not the person. If they suspect the vape pen could be or was used in a crime they can take it as things stand. I understand how searches work and have great understanding of the 4th Amendment... property doesn't have 4th amendment rights. I am not saying I agree with forfeiture laws but Texas has them. Forfeiture doesn't require accusing or charging someone with a crime.

Personally I think forfeiture is horrible and is a way to circumvent constitutional rights.

I have a few issues with this.

1. Any vape pen in any vehicle in the state could qualify, not to mention fire arm, needle, or so many other items. I don’t know Texas criminal procedure. I will not pretend to be an expert on criminal procedure as I only took one crim law class and procedure was only covered as one part of that. But, if this passes admissibility tests, it would be shocking. This is the kind of thing that even conservative justices would not support as it is flat out unconstitutional. To take and test the pen, they must have access to it, to gain access they must have a right to search the vehicle, they did not. They only had a right to remove the weapons. They can think whatever they want, they cannot act unless they see something clearly illegal, and a vape pen is not clearly illegal.

2. Personal property rights are covered under the fourth amendment. That is why you need a warrant to enter a private residence that you believe has stolen property or illegal property (guns, drugs, ect…) Prince‘s rights were violated the moment the pen was touched, and the evidence thereafter is inadmissible, unless the cop can establish a reasonable suspicion the pen had drugs. If the pen was not on top of the guns he cannot grab it. He just cannot. Sight or smell is the only basis for reasonable suspicion, and even then it is weighed against the context of the stop. He was not impaired, and it is not reasonable to assume he had unlawful substances in his possession. The gun retrieval was the only purpose for the officer in the car, the presumption is going to go against the cop on this.

1. Yes, any property that could possibly be involved in a crime is subject asset forfeiture this would include vape pens, any and all. But if this bothers you think about all the cash they take. Moreover I wouldn't have faith conservative justices would be against this, short of maybe Thomas if you look at the tools and latitude they have granted law enforcement. But yes, it is awful.

2. Property doesn't have constitutional rights, which is how this is a big loophole. Forcing innocent people to go to civil court to prove they are in fact innocent of crimes they were neither charged with or accused of.

Again, criminal isn’t my area. Con law is something I loved in school and while I don’t practice Con law I do keep up with it. I think we can agree that without the Pen there is no criminal case. Do you agree with that statement? The questions are going to be about the validity of the search and the admissibility of the evidence based on the search. The legal theory you are describing is not likely to pass muster.

This article addresses the issue of forfeiture. It is more about the possession than anything else. It is a whole different ball game to use forfeiture as evidence of guilt in a criminal matter. I just want to be clear, no state law can violate the constitution, which is why an end around of the fourth amendment for criminal purposes is not common.

https://ij.org/press-release/texas-civil-forfeiture-release-3-31-2014/

[Note30]

What's your solution? Should we stop pulling over Black people until the proportion equals out? IMO expired tabs is a very good reason to pull somebody over. This from a person who was pulled over for expired tabs. For what it's worth I'm mostly White European Heritage, 1/8th Native and a bit Asian.

Cops should stop being racist and be defunded until they aren't. Pretty simple

If you're trying to fill quotas maybe your system is broken.

And like I said the issue wasn't the pulling over, it's known that cops pull over Black people more. It's was the search which was probably illegal. I'm just happy Prince didn't get shot.

Everybody in the world should stop being racist. Do you think cops are more racist on average than other people? If so why? I mean do people want to be cops to get more opportunities to stick it to the Black man? What about Black cops?

C'mon man. How many videos of police brutality, how many matches, how many clear views through video evidence and lack of prosecution of cops, do you need to realize that the police force is a system designed to help the prison industrial complex along. ACAB.

If you are going to argue with me check your mostly white privilege and sit down. I don't need your old ass defending a racist ass institution to debate me on the merits of which cops are racist. If you are a cop you are upholding a systemically racist organization and if you do that you're either too privileged to care, have been made welcome to the system, or are a through and through racist.

[winforlose]

Cops should stop being racist and be defunded until they aren't. Pretty simple

If you're trying to fill quotas maybe your system is broken.

And like I said the issue wasn't the pulling over, it's known that cops pull over Black people more. It's was the search which was probably illegal. I'm just happy Prince didn't get shot.

Everybody in the world should stop being racist. Do you think cops are more racist on average than other people? If so why? I mean do people want to be cops to get more opportunities to stick it to the Black man? What about Black cops?

C'mon man. How many videos of police brutality, how many matches, how many clear views through video evidence and lack of prosecution of cops, do you need to realize that the police force is a system designed to help the prison industrial complex along. ACAB.

If you are going to argue with me check your mostly white privilege and sit down. I don't need your old ass defending a racist ass institution to debate me on the merits of which cops are racist. If you are a cop you are upholding a systemically racist organization and if you do that you're either too privileged to care, have been made welcome to the system, or are a through and through racist.

Can we please lower the temperature? I too feel that we need greater accountability in law enforcement and we need to take a good hard look at the racial disparity in essentially every step of the process. That said, it isn’t racist to ask for every instance to handles equally and with more enforcement. He is arguing for equality, just with less discretion and more by the book handling of the situation. It isn’t my preference for how to handle the situation, but it is also not racist on its face.

[KGdaBom]

Cops should stop being racist and be defunded until they aren't. Pretty simple

If you're trying to fill quotas maybe your system is broken.

And like I said the issue wasn't the pulling over, it's known that cops pull over Black people more. It's was the search which was probably illegal. I'm just happy Prince didn't get shot.

Everybody in the world should stop being racist. Do you think cops are more racist on average than other people? If so why? I mean do people want to be cops to get more opportunities to stick it to the Black man? What about Black cops?

C'mon man. How many videos of police brutality, how many matches, how many clear views through video evidence and lack of prosecution of cops, do you need to realize that the police force is a system designed to help the prison industrial complex along. ACAB.

If you are going to argue with me check your mostly white privilege and sit down. I don't need your old ass defending a racist ass institution to debate me on the merits of which cops are racist. If you are a cop you are upholding a systemically racist organization and if you do that you're either too privileged to care, have been made welcome to the system, or are a through and through racist.

The police are like anybody else. They aren't perfect. I totally appreciate what the police do to keep everybody safe. You can hate them and think their all racist ****. I think they are mostly wonderful people who put their lives on the line for all of us.

As for White privilege I loved the new Beavis and Butthead movie where they accidentally stumbled into a college class and learned about White privilege and then went out and acted as if that white privilege totally applied to them. White privilege does exist, but I grew up poor and believe me wealthy privilege applies far more than White privilege. The wealthy got all the opportunity and preferential treatment compared to the poor.

[Note30]

Everybody in the world should stop being racist. Do you think cops are more racist on average than other people? If so why? I mean do people want to be cops to get more opportunities to stick it to the Black man? What about Black cops?

C'mon man. How many videos of police brutality, how many matches, how many clear views through video evidence and lack of prosecution of cops, do you need to realize that the police force is a system designed to help the prison industrial complex along. ACAB.

If you are going to argue with me check your mostly white privilege and sit down. I don't need your old ass defending a racist ass institution to debate me on the merits of which cops are racist. If you are a cop you are upholding a systemically racist organization and if you do that you're either too privileged to care, have been made welcome to the system, or are a through and through racist.

The police are like anybody else. They aren't perfect. I totally appreciate what the police do to keep everybody safe. You can hate them and think their all racist ****. I think they are mostly wonderful people who put their lives on the line for all of us.

Yeah of course you do. It's never bothered you in your life. You don't got to worry about it. But people carrying sandwiches back to their apartment or sleeping in their own bed do.

[SO_MONEY]

I have a few issues with this.

1. Any vape pen in any vehicle in the state could qualify, not to mention fire arm, needle, or so many other items. I don’t know Texas criminal procedure. I will not pretend to be an expert on criminal procedure as I only took one crim law class and procedure was only covered as one part of that. But, if this passes admissibility tests, it would be shocking. This is the kind of thing that even conservative justices would not support as it is flat out unconstitutional. To take and test the pen, they must have access to it, to gain access they must have a right to search the vehicle, they did not. They only had a right to remove the weapons. They can think whatever they want, they cannot act unless they see something clearly illegal, and a vape pen is not clearly illegal.

2. Personal property rights are covered under the fourth amendment. That is why you need a warrant to enter a private residence that you believe has stolen property or illegal property (guns, drugs, ect…) Prince‘s rights were violated the moment the pen was touched, and the evidence thereafter is inadmissible, unless the cop can establish a reasonable suspicion the pen had drugs. If the pen was not on top of the guns he cannot grab it. He just cannot. Sight or smell is the only basis for reasonable suspicion, and even then it is weighed against the context of the stop. He was not impaired, and it is not reasonable to assume he had unlawful substances in his possession. The gun retrieval was the only purpose for the officer in the car, the presumption is going to go against the cop on this.

1. Yes, any property that could possibly be involved in a crime is subject asset forfeiture this would include vape pens, any and all. But if this bothers you think about all the cash they take. Moreover I wouldn't have faith conservative justices would be against this, short of maybe Thomas if you look at the tools and latitude they have granted law enforcement. But yes, it is awful.

2. Property doesn't have constitutional rights, which is how this is a big loophole. Forcing innocent people to go to civil court to prove they are in fact innocent of crimes they were neither charged with or accused of.

Again, criminal isn’t my area. Con law is something I loved in school and while I don’t practice Con law I do keep up with it. I think we can agree that without the Pen there is no criminal case. Do you agree with that statement? The questions are going to be about the validity of the search and the admissibility of the evidence based on the search. The legal theory you are describing is not likely to pass muster.

This article addresses the issue of forfeiture. It is more about the possession than anything else. It is a whole different ball game to use forfeiture as evidence of guilt in a criminal matter. I just want to be clear, no state law can violate the constitution, which is why an end around of the fourth amendment for criminal purposes is not common.

https://ij.org/press-release/texas-civil-forfeiture-release-3-31-2014/

I need to read the charging document to know the circumstances so I can't agree or disagree, but I think the circumstances related to the firearms are probably at issues and what led officers into his vehicle in the first place.

Secondly forfeiture isn't a legal theory it is law, whether that law violates the constitution is a matter for the courts and up to this point they haven't done anything on the federal level, some states have abolished the practice.

Lastly, I am not sure if or how hey can use it as evidence. In Texas it is like a 60 day deadline to challenge, but once forfeited the person no longer owns it or has claim to any rights related to it. It legally speaking could be treated no different than abandoned property for evidence collection, that would be my argument in the affirmative.

[KGdaBom]

C'mon man. How many videos of police brutality, how many matches, how many clear views through video evidence and lack of prosecution of cops, do you need to realize that the police force is a system designed to help the prison industrial complex along. ACAB.

If you are going to argue with me check your mostly white privilege and sit down. I don't need your old ass defending a racist ass institution to debate me on the merits of which cops are racist. If you are a cop you are upholding a systemically racist organization and if you do that you're either too privileged to care, have been made welcome to the system, or are a through and through racist.

The police are like anybody else. They aren't perfect. I totally appreciate what the police do to keep everybody safe. You can hate them and think their all racist ****. I think they are mostly wonderful people who put their lives on the line for all of us.

Yeah of course you do. It's never bothered you in your life. You don't got to worry about it. But people carrying sandwiches back to their apartment or sleeping in their own bed do.

You choose to look at the bad and hate. I choose to look at the good and appreciate. The police have an incredibly difficult job to do. Any little mistake they make can be the last thing they ever do. It's easy for you who don't have to do the job to sit back and criticize. I grew up poor. Trust me I never lived a privileged life. I lived an extremely underprivileged life. I haven't had much trouble with the police because I don't give them reason to have much trouble with me.

I'm not saying the police haven't abused their power. Power does corrupt. However, the vast majority of police become police because they want to make our world a better place. What do you do to make our world better? I'd really like to know.

[winforlose]

1. Yes, any property that could possibly be involved in a crime is subject asset forfeiture this would include vape pens, any and all. But if this bothers you think about all the cash they take. Moreover I wouldn't have faith conservative justices would be against this, short of maybe Thomas if you look at the tools and latitude they have granted law enforcement. But yes, it is awful.

2. Property doesn't have constitutional rights, which is how this is a big loophole. Forcing innocent people to go to civil court to prove they are in fact innocent of crimes they were neither charged with or accused of.

Again, criminal isn’t my area. Con law is something I loved in school and while I don’t practice Con law I do keep up with it. I think we can agree that without the Pen there is no criminal case. Do you agree with that statement? The questions are going to be about the validity of the search and the admissibility of the evidence based on the search. The legal theory you are describing is not likely to pass muster.

This article addresses the issue of forfeiture. It is more about the possession than anything else. It is a whole different ball game to use forfeiture as evidence of guilt in a criminal matter. I just want to be clear, no state law can violate the constitution, which is why an end around of the fourth amendment for criminal purposes is not common.

https://ij.org/press-release/texas-civil-forfeiture-release-3-31-2014/

I need to read the charging document to know the circumstances so I can't agree or disagree, but I think the circumstances related to the firearms are probably at issues and what led officers into his vehicle in the first place.

Secondly forfeiture isn't a legal theory it is law, whether that law violates the constitution is a matter for the courts and up to this point they haven't done anything on the federal level, some states have abolished the practice.

Lastly, I am not sure if or hthey can use it as evidence n Texas it is like 60 days, but once forfeited the person no longer owns it

I don’t know why you don’t believe the statements made by the officers, the police force, or their spokes people. The issue was the tags. They asked if he had weapons, he said yes. Everyone including Prince did everything right in that regard. It is the next phase when the cop went to secure the weapons that is at issue. I don’t want to go in circles so I will leave it be after saying this. If he was impaired they would have charged a DUI, if his weapons were not properly secured the issue wouldn’t have waited 3 months for charges on the pen. The headline would have been about an illegal weapons charge or an unsafe weapons charge, or whatever official title Texas has for the specific charge. The lack of statement in support of the theory or clear charges is evidence in and of itself.

2. The forfeiture issue as it relates to criminal law is different than the way it relates to property law. Ownership isn’t at issue here. Prince can let them keep the pen. The issue is whether the contents of the pen can be used against him criminally. In order to do so the pen must have been seized in a legal matter as part of a lawful search.

3. The question of ownership is immaterial to admissibility. It could belong to John Doe and still be a crime for it to be in Prince’s possession so long as there is a controlled substance inside.

[SO_MONEY]

Again, criminal isn’t my area. Con law is something I loved in school and while I don’t practice Con law I do keep up with it. I think we can agree that without the Pen there is no criminal case. Do you agree with that statement? The questions are going to be about the validity of the search and the admissibility of the evidence based on the search. The legal theory you are describing is not likely to pass muster.

This article addresses the issue of forfeiture. It is more about the possession than anything else. It is a whole different ball game to use forfeiture as evidence of guilt in a criminal matter. I just want to be clear, no state law can violate the constitution, which is why an end around of the fourth amendment for criminal purposes is not common.

https://ij.org/press-release/texas-civil-forfeiture-release-3-31-2014/

I need to read the charging document to know the circumstances so I can't agree or disagree, but I think the circumstances related to the firearms are probably at issues and what led officers into his vehicle in the first place.

Secondly forfeiture isn't a legal theory it is law, whether that law violates the constitution is a matter for the courts and up to this point they haven't done anything on the federal level, some states have abolished the practice.

Lastly, I am not sure if or hthey can use it as evidence n Texas it is like 60 days, but once forfeited the person no longer owns it

I don’t know why you don’t believe the statements made by the officers, the police force, or their spokes people. The issue was the tags. They asked if he had weapons, he said yes. Everyone including Prince did everything right in that regard. It is the next phase when the cop went to secure the weapons that is at issue. I don’t want to go in circles so I will leave it be after saying this. If he was impaired they would have charged a DUI, if his weapons were not properly secured the issue wouldn’t have waited 3 months for charges on the pen. The headline would have been about an illegal weapons charge or an unsafe weapons charge, or whatever official title Texas has for the specific charge. The lack of statement in support of the theory or clear charges is evidence in and of itself.

2. The forfeiture issue as it relates to criminal law is different than the way it relates to property law. Ownership isn’t at issue here. Prince can let them keep the pen. The issue is whether the contents of the pen can be used against him criminally. In order to do so the pen must have been seized in a legal matter as part of a lawful search.

3. The question of ownership is immaterial to admissibility. It could belong to John Doe and still be a crime for it to be in Prince’s possession so long as there is a controlled substance inside.

You caught me mid edit, fat fingers. The last paragraph is up now...reads as follows:

Lastly, I am not sure if or how hey can use it as evidence. In Texas it is like a 60 day deadline to challenge, but once forfeited the person no longer owns it or has claim to any rights related to it. It legally speaking could be treated no different than abandoned property for evidence collection, that would be my argument in the affirmative.

This might also explain the lag in the arrest warrant. Who knows?

[winforlose]

I need to read the charging document to know the circumstances so I can't agree or disagree, but I think the circumstances related to the firearms are probably at issues and what led officers into his vehicle in the first place.

Secondly forfeiture isn't a legal theory it is law, whether that law violates the constitution is a matter for the courts and up to this point they haven't done anything on the federal level, some states have abolished the practice.

Lastly, I am not sure if or hthey can use it as evidence n Texas it is like 60 days, but once forfeited the person no longer owns it

I don’t know why you don’t believe the statements made by the officers, the police force, or their spokes people. The issue was the tags. They asked if he had weapons, he said yes. Everyone including Prince did everything right in that regard. It is the next phase when the cop went to secure the weapons that is at issue. I don’t want to go in circles so I will leave it be after saying this. If he was impaired they would have charged a DUI, if his weapons were not properly secured the issue wouldn’t have waited 3 months for charges on the pen. The headline would have been about an illegal weapons charge or an unsafe weapons charge, or whatever official title Texas has for the specific charge. The lack of statement in support of the theory or clear charges is evidence in and of itself.

2. The forfeiture issue as it relates to criminal law is different than the way it relates to property law. Ownership isn’t at issue here. Prince can let them keep the pen. The issue is whether the contents of the pen can be used against him criminally. In order to do so the pen must have been seized in a legal matter as part of a lawful search.

3. The question of ownership is immaterial to admissibility. It could belong to John Doe and still be a crime for it to be in Prince’s possession so long as there is a controlled substance inside.

You caught me mid edit, fat fingers. The last paragraph is up now...reads as follows:

Lastly, I am not sure if or how hey can use it as evidence. In Texas it is like a 60 day deadline to challenge, but once forfeited the person no longer owns it or has claim to any rights related to it. It legally speaking could be treated no different than abandoned property for evidence collection, that would be my argument in the affirmative.

This might also explain the lag in the arrest warrant. Who knows?

It was explicitly stated the lag in the arrest warrant was the testing just came back on the pen. Dangerous drugs was an incorrect charge because neither THC nor Marijuana qualify. The correct charge is controlled substance penalty group 2, less than 1g.

I appreciate your passion regarding forfeiture laws, but I think you are misunderstanding how they apply. In the article I posted they give an excellent example of a man having his vehicle seized even though he did not commit a crime. That is very different than an unauthorized search and illegal seizure by law enforcement for the purposes of using the property as evidence against the owner.