Taurean Prince arrested

[SO_MONEY]

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.

I perfectly understand the exclusionary rule, that is your argument but it doesn't apply to civil cases, so an example would be could the proceeds of that seizure fall under something such as independent source doctorine? I think you are oversimplifing things.

[winforlose]

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.

I perfectly understand the exclusionary rule, that is your argument but it doesn't apply to civil cases, so an example would be could the proceeds of that seizure fall under something such as independent source doctorine? I think you are oversimplifing things.

Fair enough. One thing I thought was interesting, is something I saw on hoopshype and a couple other places. I am going to quote it here. “ On Friday, Prince made his first appearance in Miami-Dade court and was granted a $2,500 bond. His defense lawyer, David Weinstein, said the charge was already being dismissed in Tarrant County, Texas, and stemmed from a trace amount of marijuana found during a traffic stop. Prince was unaware that police had filed the warrant for the low-level felony, Weinsten said. “If he had known warrant existed, he would have surrendered,” Weinstein told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Mindy Glazer. 4 days ago – via Miami Herald”

At the time I took it to mean the prior dangerous drug charge was being dismissed. But on further review I am wondering if the current controlled substance charge is already being dismissed.

[KGdaBom]

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.

I perfectly understand the exclusionary rule, that is your argument but it doesn't apply to civil cases, so an example would be could the proceeds of that seizure fall under something such as independent source doctorine? I think you are oversimplifing things.

Fair enough. One thing I thought was interesting, is something I saw on hoopshype and a couple other places. I am going to quote it here. “ On Friday, Prince made his first appearance in Miami-Dade court and was granted a $2,500 bond. His defense lawyer, David Weinstein, said the charge was already being dismissed in Tarrant County, Texas, and stemmed from a trace amount of marijuana found during a traffic stop. Prince was unaware that police had filed the warrant for the low-level felony, Weinsten said. “If he had known warrant existed, he would have surrendered,” Weinstein told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Mindy Glazer. 4 days ago – via Miami Herald”

At the time I took it to mean the prior dangerous drug charge was being dismissed. But on further review I am wondering if the current controlled substance charge is already being dismissed.

This would be very good news.

[Nick K]

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.

At least it's supposed to.

[Nick K]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[minimus]

No news here? Are we ready for media day?

[_AIJ_]

No news here? Are we ready for media day?

He’s been training with the team so probably was resolved.

[minimus]

No news here? Are we ready for media day?

He’s been training with the team so probably was resolved.

good news!