Taurean Prince arrested

[SO_MONEY]

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.

Again for all intents and purposes if a person doesn't make a claim with regards to this property and challenge said seizure in civil court it, legally speaking it is abandoned and might be allowed to be treated as such for evidence collection.

Also, the example of the DUI is not nearly equatable, because forfeiture is codified into law and a civil penalty of the offense. But one also would assume it could be used as evidence in a criminal case as well, DUI or other. Just saying...

[shrink]

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

Registration fees also pay for the state administration which decides how to apply money to fix roads and build new ones.

And that’s fair. People that drive put wear and tear on the road and get charged, people that don’t use the roads don’t have to pay the fee.

[SO_MONEY]

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

Registration fees also pay for the state administration which decides how to apply money to fix roads and build new ones.

And that’s fair. People that drive put wear and tear on the road and get charged, people that don’t use the roads don’t have to pay the fee.

I believe it is called a wheelage tax.

[winforlose]

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.

Again for all intents and purposes if a person doesn't make a claim with regards to this property and challenge said seizure in civil court it, legally speaking it is abandoned and might be allowed to be treated as such for evidence collection.

Also, the example of the DUI is not nearly equatable, because forfeiture is codified into law and a civil penalty of the offense. But one also would assume it could be used as evidence in a criminal case as well. Just saying...

I am a little lost here. You are saying that once the pen is on longer his then they can say it is admissible against him? I take that back, I am so lost I cannot even formulate a proper response to this theory.

Ownership of the pen does not matter. Control does. The pen was in the vehicle therefore under Prince’s control. The manner in which it came to be under police control matters in the question of admissibility. If the pen was discovered and taken as the result of an illegal search it is fruit of the poisonous tree and therefore not available for a PC hearing or at any stage of trial. Without the pen there is no evidence of THC oil and thus no controlled substance charge. The pen is the whole case. The only relevant question is whether the pen was in the path of the weapons? If yes, then it may be moved, if no then it may not. If it is not immediately visible that the pen contains THC oil or it does not smell of THC oil (something that should be odorless,) the pen may not be opened or examined in any way. It certainly may not be removed from Prince’s control and tested for drugs in order to incriminate him. It is both an illegal search and illegal seizure and is a textbook get out of jail free card. So, the question to sorted out is what gave the cop the right to interact with the pen? Forfeiture isn’t even remotely related to this.

[shrink]

Does anyone know if Prince could have refused to allow officers to search his car in Texas?

If the handguns are in the car, and he’s stepping out of the car anyway for a search, there is no threat to officers.

I think if I am ever in a situation, even if completely innocent, I plan to say nothing to officers and refuse any searches, simply because I think more people need to stand up for their civil liberties. Is that naive and impractical?

[winforlose]

Does anyone know if Prince could have refused to allow officers to search his car in Texas?

If the handguns are in the car, and he’s stepping out of the car anyway for a search, there is no threat to officers.

I think if I am ever in a situation, even if completely innocent, I plan to say nothing to officers and refuse any searches, simply because I think more people need to stand up for their civil liberties. Is that naive and impractical?

A search at that point IS NOT LEGAL. I cannot stress that enough. The officer is entitled to retrieve the weapons, NOTHING MORE. In the statement made by police the search didn’t start until after the pen was found. The finding is the issue. He needs to see it and immediately know that the pen or substance within is not legal. He may not examine it, he may not open it, he must make the determination only with sight, sound, and smell.

You have the right not to speak to officers, but you MUST comply with all lawful orders. If you fail to speak to them, in some cases it may be seen as a sign of trying to avoid appearing impaired (drunk, on drugs, ect…) Also, cops tend to treat people better who are polite and cooperative. That said, you don’t have to say anything you don’t want to.

Edit to add: filming encounters via live stream is very smart and a good way to stay safe during such an encounter. Unfortunately, it is also seen as aggressive and provocative by some officers. You won’t likely get many warnings and the situation could escalate more quickly if you do. That said, some people feel much safer with the cop’s actions being recorded and a clear record of the conversation and events being created.

[SO_MONEY]

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.

Again for all intents and purposes if a person doesn't make a claim with regards to this property and challenge said seizure in civil court it, legally speaking it is abandoned and might be allowed to be treated as such for evidence collection.

Also, the example of the DUI is not nearly equatable, because forfeiture is codified into law and a civil penalty of the offense. But one also would assume it could be used as evidence in a criminal case as well. Just saying...

I am a little lost here. You are saying that once the pen is on longer his then they can say it is admissible against him? I take that back, I am so lost I cannot even formulate a proper response to this theory.

Ownership of the pen does not matter. Control does. The pen was in the vehicle therefore under Prince’s control. The manner in which it came to be under police control matters in the question of admissibility. If the pen was discovered and taken as the result of an illegal search it is fruit of the poisonous tree and therefore not available for a PC hearing or at any stage of trial. Without the pen there is no evidence of THC oil and thus no controlled substance charge. The pen is the whole case. The only relevant question is whether the pen was in the path of the weapons? If yes, then it may be moved, if no then it may not. If it is not immediately visible that the pen contains THC oil or it does not smell of THC oil (something that should be odorless,) the pen may not be opened or examined in any way. It certainly may not be removed from Prince’s control and tested for drugs in order to incriminate him. It is both an illegal search and illegal seizure and is a textbook get out of jail free card. So, the question to sorted out is what gave the cop the right to interact with the pen? Forfeiture isn’t even remotely related to this.

Try and stick with me forfeiture has nothing to do with control or ownership it is a matter of if property is suspected to be used or might be used in criminal activity. The property is being changed not the person. Yes, obviously the question is admissablity. To that end I have stated it might be allowed once it is viewed as abandoned... maybe it doesn't even take that. I honestly don't know, but I can all but guarantee a vehicle under forfeiture in your example can be used as evidence in the DUI in that criminal offense or probably any criminal offense it yields. I have no proof of this other than I don't think they would codify a civil penalty into law if it would prevent convictions and limit access to evidence. However, there might be some waiver you sign when you get your license... again who knows? And like I said that situation doesn't equate.

[BlacJacMac]

Does anyone know if Prince could have refused to allow officers to search his car in Texas?

If the handguns are in the car, and he’s stepping out of the car anyway for a search, there is no threat to officers.

I think if I am ever in a situation, even if completely innocent, I plan to say nothing to officers and refuse any searches, simply because I think more people need to stand up for their civil liberties. Is that naive and impractical?

Words matter. I've been told by numerous people that when asked if police can search your car or your person to either say "I do not consent to a warrantless search" or "No officer, I do not consent to a search".

Never answer with "yes" or "no". The question can often be intentionally framed ambiguously, for example "You wouldn't mind if I take a look in your car?" In this case they can argue a "Yes" means "Yes, I wouldn't mind", while a "no" can be framed as No, I wouldn't mind".

[winforlose]

Again for all intents and purposes if a person doesn't make a claim with regards to this property and challenge said seizure in civil court it, legally speaking it is abandoned and might be allowed to be treated as such for evidence collection.

Also, the example of the DUI is not nearly equatable, because forfeiture is codified into law and a civil penalty of the offense. But one also would assume it could be used as evidence in a criminal case as well. Just saying...

I am a little lost here. You are saying that once the pen is on longer his then they can say it is admissible against him? I take that back, I am so lost I cannot even formulate a proper response to this theory.

Ownership of the pen does not matter. Control does. The pen was in the vehicle therefore under Prince’s control. The manner in which it came to be under police control matters in the question of admissibility. If the pen was discovered and taken as the result of an illegal search it is fruit of the poisonous tree and therefore not available for a PC hearing or at any stage of trial. Without the pen there is no evidence of THC oil and thus no controlled substance charge. The pen is the whole case. The only relevant question is whether the pen was in the path of the weapons? If yes, then it may be moved, if no then it may not. If it is not immediately visible that the pen contains THC oil or it does not smell of THC oil (something that should be odorless,) the pen may not be opened or examined in any way. It certainly may not be removed from Prince’s control and tested for drugs in order to incriminate him. It is both an illegal search and illegal seizure and is a textbook get out of jail free card. So, the question to sorted out is what gave the cop the right to interact with the pen? Forfeiture isn’t even remotely related to this.

Try and stick with me forfeiture has nothing to do with control or ownership it is a matter of if property is suspected to be used or might be used in criminal activity. The property is being changed not the person. Yes, obviously the question is admissablity. To that end I have stated it might be allowed once it is viewed as abandoned... maybe it doesn't even take that. I honestly don't know, but I can all but guarantee a vehicle under forfeiture in your example can be used as evidence in the DUI in that criminal offense or probably any criminal offense it yields. I have no proof of this other than I don't think they would codify a civil penalty into law if it would prevent convictions and limit access to evidence. However, there might be some waiver you sign when you get your license... again who knows.

Your sister borrows your car. She takes it to Canada. While in Canada she buys a lot of prescription drugs to resell cheaper in the U.S. this is an example where your vehicle may be forfeited despite you not doing anything illegal. You didn’t commit the crime, but your property was used. Another example is you buy stolen merchandise you didn’t know was stolen. You paid money for it, had a good faith belief it was legal, but the property is still seized. There are other examples as well. But none of this is even in the same league as what you are talking about.

Pretend that this was a house instead of a car. The cops knock on the door and ask to come in. You have the right to refuse them entry. If they force their way in, anything they find is inadmissible against you. The same is true of your car. They must have permission or probable cause for a search. I am not even sure they could make reasonable suspicion on this fact pattern, but definitely not probable cause. But going back to the house hypo, in the course of the illegal search they find something (call it a stereo,) that isn’t street legal. So they come back and seize the item and refuse to return it under forfeiture. That doesn’t mean they can wait till your ownership expires and end run the illegal search. NO LAW can be passed by the state to allow illegal search. The constitution always trumps everything else.

[SO_MONEY]

I am a little lost here. You are saying that once the pen is on longer his then they can say it is admissible against him? I take that back, I am so lost I cannot even formulate a proper response to this theory.

Ownership of the pen does not matter. Control does. The pen was in the vehicle therefore under Prince’s control. The manner in which it came to be under police control matters in the question of admissibility. If the pen was discovered and taken as the result of an illegal search it is fruit of the poisonous tree and therefore not available for a PC hearing or at any stage of trial. Without the pen there is no evidence of THC oil and thus no controlled substance charge. The pen is the whole case. The only relevant question is whether the pen was in the path of the weapons? If yes, then it may be moved, if no then it may not. If it is not immediately visible that the pen contains THC oil or it does not smell of THC oil (something that should be odorless,) the pen may not be opened or examined in any way. It certainly may not be removed from Prince’s control and tested for drugs in order to incriminate him. It is both an illegal search and illegal seizure and is a textbook get out of jail free card. So, the question to sorted out is what gave the cop the right to interact with the pen? Forfeiture isn’t even remotely related to this.

Try and stick with me forfeiture has nothing to do with control or ownership it is a matter of if property is suspected to be used or might be used in criminal activity. The property is being changed not the person. Yes, obviously the question is admissablity. To that end I have stated it might be allowed once it is viewed as abandoned... maybe it doesn't even take that. I honestly don't know, but I can all but guarantee a vehicle under forfeiture in your example can be used as evidence in the DUI in that criminal offense or probably any criminal offense it yields. I have no proof of this other than I don't think they would codify a civil penalty into law if it would prevent convictions and limit access to evidence. However, there might be some waiver you sign when you get your license... again who knows.

Your sister borrows your car. She takes it to Canada. While in Canada she buys a lot of prescription drugs to resell cheaper in the U.S. this is an example where your vehicle may be forfeited despite you not doing anything illegal. You didn’t commit the crime, but your property was used. Another example is you buy stolen merchandise you didn’t know was stolen. You paid money for it, had a good faith belief it was legal, but the property is still seized. There are other examples as well. But none of this is even in the same league as what you are talking about.

Pretend that this was a house instead of a car. The cops knock on the door and ask to come in. You have the right to refuse them entry. If they force their way in, anything they find is inadmissible against you. The same is true of your car. They must have permission or probable cause for a search. I am not even sure they could make reasonable suspicion on this fact pattern, but definitely not probable cause. But going back to the house hypo, in the course of the illegal search they find something (call it a stereo,) that isn’t street legal. So they come back and seize the item and refuse to return it under forfeiture. That doesn’t mean they can wait till your ownership expires and end run the illegal search. NO LAW can be passed by the state to allow illegal search. The constitution always trumps everything else.

Stop with those types of examples, they don't reflect what I am talking about AND you don't have to look far for one that does.

A guy goes to the bank, withdraws $10,000, gets into an accident, cops question him about money, don't "believe" him take the money. It is really that simple.

The requirements between entry of a vehicle and domicile are different FAR different. You don't need a warrant to search a car or seize property whereas a home you do in both cases. And you don't need PC to seize property under civil forfeiture.

[winforlose]

Try and stick with me forfeiture has nothing to do with control or ownership it is a matter of if property is suspected to be used or might be used in criminal activity. The property is being changed not the person. Yes, obviously the question is admissablity. To that end I have stated it might be allowed once it is viewed as abandoned... maybe it doesn't even take that. I honestly don't know, but I can all but guarantee a vehicle under forfeiture in your example can be used as evidence in the DUI in that criminal offense or probably any criminal offense it yields. I have no proof of this other than I don't think they would codify a civil penalty into law if it would prevent convictions and limit access to evidence. However, there might be some waiver you sign when you get your license... again who knows.

Your sister borrows your car. She takes it to Canada. While in Canada she buys a lot of prescription drugs to resell cheaper in the U.S. this is an example where your vehicle may be forfeited despite you not doing anything illegal. You didn’t commit the crime, but your property was used. Another example is you buy stolen merchandise you didn’t know was stolen. You paid money for it, had a good faith belief it was legal, but the property is still seized. There are other examples as well. But none of this is even in the same league as what you are talking about.

Pretend that this was a house instead of a car. The cops knock on the door and ask to come in. You have the right to refuse them entry. If they force their way in, anything they find is inadmissible against you. The same is true of your car. They must have permission or probable cause for a search. I am not even sure they could make reasonable suspicion on this fact pattern, but definitely not probable cause. But going back to the house hypo, in the course of the illegal search they find something (call it a stereo,) that isn’t street legal. So they come back and seize the item and refuse to return it under forfeiture. That doesn’t mean they can wait till your ownership expires and end run the illegal search. NO LAW can be passed by the state to allow illegal search. The constitution always trumps everything else.

Stop with those types of examples, they don't reflect what I am talking about AND you don't have to look far for one that does.

A guy goes to the bank, withdraws $10,000, gets into an accident, cops question him about money, don't "believe" him take the money. It is really that simple.

That is fine, but that has no connection to a criminal context. I am not a Texan, I have never been to Texas (I almost moved to Austin on a law school scholarship, but got a better one at the U of M,) and I have no plans to live in Texas. With the current Supreme Court I wouldn’t want to live in a red state. I cannot speak to the injustice of Texas forfeiture law, I haven’t studied a single case beyond a few minutes of internet searching after brought it up. That said, it does not, cannot, and will not trump the 4th amendment. It would be career suicide for anyone to March into court and argue that illegal searches are permissible for forfeiture purposes. Especially when the illegally seized evidence will then be presented at trial.

[Dewey]

Babble… bottom line: be smarter and be more accountable.

[winforlose]

Babble… bottom line: be smarter and be more accountable.

Prince, the cops, or both?

[KGdaBom]

Babble… bottom line: be smarter and be more accountable.

Prince, the cops, or both?

Both. Everybody should be accountable for their actions.

[SO_MONEY]

Your sister borrows your car. She takes it to Canada. While in Canada she buys a lot of prescription drugs to resell cheaper in the U.S. this is an example where your vehicle may be forfeited despite you not doing anything illegal. You didn’t commit the crime, but your property was used. Another example is you buy stolen merchandise you didn’t know was stolen. You paid money for it, had a good faith belief it was legal, but the property is still seized. There are other examples as well. But none of this is even in the same league as what you are talking about.

Pretend that this was a house instead of a car. The cops knock on the door and ask to come in. You have the right to refuse them entry. If they force their way in, anything they find is inadmissible against you. The same is true of your car. They must have permission or probable cause for a search. I am not even sure they could make reasonable suspicion on this fact pattern, but definitely not probable cause. But going back to the house hypo, in the course of the illegal search they find something (call it a stereo,) that isn’t street legal. So they come back and seize the item and refuse to return it under forfeiture. That doesn’t mean they can wait till your ownership expires and end run the illegal search. NO LAW can be passed by the state to allow illegal search. The constitution always trumps everything else.

Stop with those types of examples, they don't reflect what I am talking about AND you don't have to look far for one that does.

A guy goes to the bank, withdraws $10,000, gets into an accident, cops question him about money, don't "believe" him take the money. It is really that simple.

That is fine, but that has no connection to a criminal context. I am not a Texan, I have never been to Texas (I almost moved to Austin on a law school scholarship, but got a better one at the U of M,) and I have no plans to live in Texas. With the current Supreme Court I wouldn’t want to live in a red state. I cannot speak to the injustice of Texas forfeiture law, I haven’t studied a single case beyond a few minutes of internet searching after brought it up. That said, it does not, cannot, and will not trump the 4th amendment. It would be career suicide for anyone to March into court and argue that illegal searches are permissible for forfeiture purposes. Especially when the illegally seized evidence will then be presented at trial.

Again, if it violates the 4th amendment that is up to the courts, not a philosophical debate, if it were and up to either of us it would be illegal. But it is legal, and you don't need probable cause for civil asset forfeiture just a suspicion. So all around this country including MN, not just red states people are committing unsuccessful career suicide and it will continue and continue to be unsuccessful because it is legal unfortunately.

[winforlose]

Stop with those types of examples, they don't reflect what I am talking about AND you don't have to look far for one that does.

A guy goes to the bank, withdraws $10,000, gets into an accident, cops question him about money, don't "believe" him take the money. It is really that simple.

That is fine, but that has no connection to a criminal context. I am not a Texan, I have never been to Texas (I almost moved to Austin on a law school scholarship, but got a better one at the U of M,) and I have no plans to live in Texas. With the current Supreme Court I wouldn’t want to live in a red state. I cannot speak to the injustice of Texas forfeiture law, I haven’t studied a single case beyond a few minutes of internet searching after brought it up. That said, it does not, cannot, and will not trump the 4th amendment. It would be career suicide for anyone to March into court and argue that illegal searches are permissible for forfeiture purposes. Especially when the illegally seized evidence will then be presented at trial.

Again, if it violates the 4th amendment that is up to the courts, not a philosophical debate, if it were and up to either of us it would be illegal. But it is legal, and you don't need probable cause for civil asset forfeiture just a suspicion. So all around this country including MN, not just red states people are committing unsuccessful career suicide and it will continue and continue to be unsuccessful because it is legal unfortunately.

I almost didn’t respond to this, because I was unsure of how to explain this point to you any better than I already did. But I thought of one new way to communicate my point to you. The pen does not need to be Prince’s to charge Prince. It could be his mom’s, his sisters, his wife’s, it could be a vape pen he found in the street. Ownership is not material to a possession charge. Forfeiture deals with ownership. He is not being charged with owning THC oil, but rather possessing it. Once the pen leaves his control he is no longer liable for it. Your basic contention if I understand it, was that they seize the pen, wait to test it and then once his rights to deny testing are gone the evidence is used against him. But the seizing itself is the only relevant act in question. It is how they got the pen, not who owns it. Does that make sense? Like in the movies when the fingerprints or DNA is on a cup. Once the fingerprint or DNA is no longer under your control they can test it as they please. But the guy has the right not to provide it as evidence so long as it is under his control, and the manner of taking makes all the difference.

[Nick K]

Does anyone know if Prince could have refused to allow officers to search his car in Texas?

If the handguns are in the car, and he’s stepping out of the car anyway for a search, there is no threat to officers.

I think if I am ever in a situation, even if completely innocent, I plan to say nothing to officers and refuse any searches, simply because I think more people need to stand up for their civil liberties. Is that naive and impractical?

Yep. I think I'd do that too. They can make it difficult though.

[Nick K]

That is fine, but that has no connection to a criminal context. I am not a Texan, I have never been to Texas (I almost moved to Austin on a law school scholarship, but got a better one at the U of M,) and I have no plans to live in Texas. With the current Supreme Court I wouldn’t want to live in a red state. I cannot speak to the injustice of Texas forfeiture law, I haven’t studied a single case beyond a few minutes of internet searching after brought it up. That said, it does not, cannot, and will not trump the 4th amendment. It would be career suicide for anyone to March into court and argue that illegal searches are permissible for forfeiture purposes. Especially when the illegally seized evidence will then be presented at trial.

Again, if it violates the 4th amendment that is up to the courts, not a philosophical debate, if it were and up to either of us it would be illegal. But it is legal, and you don't need probable cause for civil asset forfeiture just a suspicion. So all around this country including MN, not just red states people are committing unsuccessful career suicide and it will continue and continue to be unsuccessful because it is legal unfortunately.

I almost didn’t respond to this, because I was unsure of how to explain this point to you any better than I already did. But I thought of one new way to communicate my point to you. The pen does not need to be Prince’s to charge Prince. It could be his mom’s, his sisters, his wife’s, it could be a vape pen he found in the street. Ownership is not material to a possession charge. Forfeiture deals with ownership. He is not being charged with owning THC oil, but rather possessing it. Once the pen leaves his control he is no longer liable for it. Your basic contention if I understand it, was that they seize the pen, wait to test it and then once his rights to deny testing are gone the evidence is used against him. But the seizing itself is the only relevant act in question. It is how they got the pen, not who owns it. Does that make sense? Like in the movies when the fingerprints or DNA is on a cup. Once the fingerprint or DNA is no longer under your control they can test it as they please. But the guy has the right not to provide it as evidence so long as it is under his control, and the manner of taking makes all the difference.

Very well explained.

[SO_MONEY]

Again, if it violates the 4th amendment that is up to the courts, not a philosophical debate, if it were and up to either of us it would be illegal. But it is legal, and you don't need probable cause for civil asset forfeiture just a suspicion. So all around this country including MN, not just red states people are committing unsuccessful career suicide and it will continue and continue to be unsuccessful because it is legal unfortunately.

I almost didn’t respond to this, because I was unsure of how to explain this point to you any better than I already did. But I thought of one new way to communicate my point to you. The pen does not need to be Prince’s to charge Prince. It could be his mom’s, his sisters, his wife’s, it could be a vape pen he found in the street. Ownership is not material to a possession charge. Forfeiture deals with ownership. He is not being charged with owning THC oil, but rather possessing it. Once the pen leaves his control he is no longer liable for it. Your basic contention if I understand it, was that they seize the pen, wait to test it and then once his rights to deny testing are gone the evidence is used against him. But the seizing itself is the only relevant act in question. It is how they got the pen, not who owns it. Does that make sense? Like in the movies when the fingerprints or DNA is on a cup. Once the fingerprint or DNA is no longer under your control they can test it as they please. But the guy has the right not to provide it as evidence so long as it is under his control, and the manner of taking makes all the difference.

Very well explained.

it really isn't. The argument he is making is that possession and control is somehow nullified in civil seizure but isn't in criminal seizure. In other words the state knows who was in possession of something when it was taken and the state taking something doesn't allow the accused to then abdicate criminal culpability steming from it by saying they are no longer in control of it.

What he needs to provide (either of us do) to make our argument is case law on the admissablity of evidence resulting from civil forfeitures in criminal cases. Being neither of us have done so I think it is readily apparent that such case law isn't fundamentally obvious.

Criminal law isn't my discipline, contract law is, it is not his discipline either. He seems to be making the case using said evidence would violate the 4th amendment, again I would agree, but that is in theory and not practice being CAF itself is a violation of the 4th amendment, in theory. The state could absolutely make the argument that due process rights are in tact because there is legal redress and a process to contest the guilt of property and any gains made are thus lawfully obtained. Neither of us know. He wasn't even aware of CAF before I brought it up, and frankly it probably doesn't pertain to the Prince situation anyway. I only bought up CAF as an option because he was being very black and white as it comes the the 4th amendment and what is permissible. They obviously could take the vape pen if they wanted.

[winforlose]

I almost didn’t respond to this, because I was unsure of how to explain this point to you any better than I already did. But I thought of one new way to communicate my point to you. The pen does not need to be Prince’s to charge Prince. It could be his mom’s, his sisters, his wife’s, it could be a vape pen he found in the street. Ownership is not material to a possession charge. Forfeiture deals with ownership. He is not being charged with owning THC oil, but rather possessing it. Once the pen leaves his control he is no longer liable for it. Your basic contention if I understand it, was that they seize the pen, wait to test it and then once his rights to deny testing are gone the evidence is used against him. But the seizing itself is the only relevant act in question. It is how they got the pen, not who owns it. Does that make sense? Like in the movies when the fingerprints or DNA is on a cup. Once the fingerprint or DNA is no longer under your control they can test it as they please. But the guy has the right not to provide it as evidence so long as it is under his control, and the manner of taking makes all the difference.

Very well explained.

it really isn't. The argument he is making is that possession and control is somehow nullified in civil seizure but isn't in criminal seizure. In other words the state knows who was in possession of something when it was taken and the state taking something doesn't allow the accused to then abdicate criminal culpability steming from it by saying they are no longer in control of it.

What he needs to provide (either of us do) to make our argument is case law on the admissablity of evidence resulting from civil forfeitures in criminal cases. Being neither of us have done so I think it is readily apparent that such case law isn't fundamentally obvious.

Criminal law isn't my discipline, contract law is, it is not his discipline either. He seems to be making the case using said evidence would violate the 4th amendment, again I would agree, but that is in theory and not practice being CAF itself is a violation of the 4th amendment, in theory. The state could absolutely make the argument that due process rights are in tact because there is legal redress and a process to contest the guilt of property and any gains made are thus lawfully obtained. Neither of us know. He wasn't even aware of CAF before I brought it up, and frankly it probably doesn't pertain to the Prince situation anyway. I only bought up CAF as an option because he was being very black and white as it comes the the 4th amendment and what is permissible. They obviously could take the vape pen if they wanted.

I think the problem is we are talking across each other. I am specifically referring to admissibility. Of course they can seize the property, but if they don’t follow criminal procedure for evidence how can they get it in under a civil procedure. I agree they can seize the pen, the guns, the pot, and the car. Probably the entire contents of the car and trunk. I am in no way disputing the principles of CAF. Only the application in a criminal law context.