Recently alaska has been talking about a law that if you are caught soliciting a prostitute that the state can seize your car. Firstly, in my mind the penalty does not fit the crime but they say its about humiliation, like how is hubby to explain that he suddenly has no car?

I have been wondering if this is constitutional?

So far we have property/auto seizures for drinking while driving, lack of auto insurance, possesion or sale of drugs or firearms ect. The IRS already can take anything they want or close your bank accounts until you settle with them, sometimes without fair hearing first.



Is this reasonable seizure? Does the penalty fit the crime?

Is it Constitutional?

Is the state beginning to enact more property seizure laws a slippery slope issue?

It seems to me that an entire family can be economically punished for one members flagrancy. I worry about the State thinking they can get their greedy paws on your property for about anything they decide is a 'crime' worth taking it for.
Your opinions?

It seems to me the best thing then would be to work to repeal laws regarding prostitution.

It's not called the oldest profession for nothin'.

Crimes that do not involve force, coersion or fraud are not crimes.

A willing exchange, in this case giving up a little booty in exchange for a little booty, might be morally questionable and for sure frought with all sorts of bacterial dangers , ain't a crime.

Prohibition and/or heavy restrictions cause black markets. black markets are created to fill a niche, even if that niche maybe illegal.

This ain't rocket science. It's supply and demand. It's a damn shame more people don't realize that.

Artemise I share your concern about seizure issues. I feel the government has been given too broad powers in its ability to seize property. In terms of Constitutionality I don't know a good argument one way or the other. I do know that seizure gives law enforcement a cash incentive to seize property and then auction it off. Also property does not get the same due process rights. A friend of mine had her car seized and had her auto company notified by the police (they then started trying to repo the car even though she kept her payments up) because her boyfriend had borrowed the car and left a roach in the ash tray.

But I digress, I have a deep mistrust of the expanding local, state, and federal powers of seizure of property.

I have always wondered what several quotes from our founders meant about Democracies not assuring the security of property, which they held dear to freedom.
Such as:
'James Madison : "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

' Thomas Jefferson : "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. "

It has also been suggested that democracies have no real respect for property, eventually.

Hence, Us Army Training Manual ( 1920's?):
Democracy, n.: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].

I dont mean to convalute this thread too much, but I think I begin to see WHY this was a concern for those who wrote about it at the beginnings of our nation. I just dont understand HOW it gets this way. They failed to mention the workings of this inevitability.

How about this:
Constitution Of The United States : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself, not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

However this gets into due process of law, which means laws can be enacted to rob you of your property.

Its instances like this that make you appreciate the brilliance of the ‘frame work’ our founding fathers gave us. The key is 'unreasonable' searches and seizures.

Property seizure apparently isn’t a violation of an individual’s right as it is currently applied to the law. With most criminal law the Federal government allows the State to determine the penalty ‘within reason’ and with other restrictions.

If Alaska wants to be the “John Free State” they certainly have the right to find an end to their means if it’s within reason. If representatives of the Alaskan legislature feel their constituency want (or need) this type of punishment for the crime then they should vote accordingly (and dust off their resume).

I personally feel it’s juuuuust a bit heavy handed. Any increase in seizure law is simply frightening. Where does is stop and when does ‘unreasonable’ become just that.

In some states if you get caught violating major hunting laws they can seize any ‘equipment’ you’re using that day: boat, trailer (duck hunters), vehicle, and most anything in your possession. It happened to my Admin years ago and nearly broke up her family.

I have a real problem with seizure laws in general since they violate the concepts of due process and presumed innocence. A person should have the right to a trial before the state takes away their possessions, that's a pretty fundamental concept of justice it seems to me.

I am wondering though, and perhaps Artemise can shed some light on this, what happens the first time a member of the Alaska State Legislature gets caught soliciting a prostitute from a state-owned car? How are they going to handle that one? LOL!!! Read the fine print, Artemise!

As I mentioned in the Should prostitution be legal? thread; in Michigan, if you are caught soliciting a prostitute (or more likely a police decoy), you will forfeit the vehicle that you used to get to that area. It has been the law here long enough that I would suspect it has been challenged on Constituional grounds.

I think the seizure laws are definatly a way to fund government agencies, its pragmatic on the surface, in the middle, and will end up like the other seizure laws from history. Frankly its a motive for abuse of power.

Taking a persons car for soliciting a prostitute is wrong. At the outside I might consider the taking of the property of say a pimp as an important step in stoping organized prostitution but I'm more worried about the governments ability to take my property then some wretch soliciting a prostitute. Especially when it is a cop poseing as a prostitute, this is the proverbial slippery slope and its picking up momentum.

I think this goes to the heart of my extreme dislike for the republican party and conservative thought- anti-goverment this, anti-goverment that, constitutional rights yadda yadda, it all goes right out the window as soon as a "sin" is commited. We live in what is possibly the most conservative state in the union, with republicans controlling every aspect of goverment. Our "founding fathers" of the state constituion were paleo-conservatives that truly did not want goverment interfereing with private life, and made the strongest privacy clause in the union, and this is what led to the legalization of marijuana.

This was just a small background for you folks, but as I go back to the questions, background of our state is neccesary.

The religious right is extremely strong in our state, and basically owns the republican party up here. This law is the outcome of conservative movement in Alaska, and a sign for the whole nation that we will have a taliban style goverment if we keep electing poeple like GW.

Is this reasonable seizure?

The fact that the above poeple even think this is a reasonable siezure shows how evil these poeple really are, how close we are to the taliban in this nation.


Does the penalty fit the crime?

Hmmm- I can see the humiliation towards married men and what that implies- but first, prostitution is not a crime ring problem up here, just simple supply and demand with the ladies running the show for the most part, so this is very extreme approach to a near non-problem here. It is low key, and performs a service, mostly to "slope" workers, who are mostly single. Though it is none of the goverments business who a guy sleeps with and how he goes about it (or she for that matter).

The punishment is so far out of whack to fit the crime it sounds more like the taliban as well!


Is it Constitutional?
Probably not, and the ACLU, bless thier liberal soul, will probably fight and win this one!

Is the state beginning to enact more property seizure laws a slippery slope issue?
Very. This is what has led to some of the national outrages such as Waco and Ruby Ridge. We love to give up our freedom to stop sinners, but hate it when it bites us in the butt!

"It seems to me that an entire family can be economically punished for one members flagrancy. I worry about the State thinking they can get their greedy paws on your property for about anything they decide is a 'crime' worth taking it for."
Your opinions?

It is the economic equivilent of the holocaust on anyone, a vehicle is typically the second largest purchase of your life, and is the equivilent of a 20-40 thou fine for a "crime" that does not involve violence, fraud or theft of service. Ken Lay isn't getting it so bad!

I'd agree with this. I once had my car seized while I was in college. My roommate needed to borrow it to go out of town to visit his brother (he didn't trust his truck on the trip). While there, he went on a drunken rampage. So, the cops seized MY car. I didn't even find out about it for a week. I have great difficulty finding any reason why someone should be able to seize MY property for something SOMEONE ELSE did, and that I had absolutely no control over or knowledge of.

As to the questions...no, I don't think it fits the crime, as I don't really think its a crime to begin with (another topic, I know).

Is it constitutional--probably. As Artemise stated, there are already all sorts of property seizure laws on the books. This alone shows they must be able to meet Constitutional muster.

Is it a slipperly slope--probably--and I normally argument strongly against this as a reason to be for/against something, preferring to think things should stand on their own. But let the government start legislating morals and taking your property for non-compliance--I'd say that slope is not only slipperly, but it's very steep, and full of rocks at the bottom.

Taliban? Let's try to maintain at least a sense of reality here. Only vaguely similar in action, and absolutely not even on the chart in terms of scale and scope. Also, don't confuse the Religious Right with the conservative movement (or the Republican Party) as a whole. This issue is one that clearly points out the difference. The Religious Right is trying to legislate morality (one of their big things), by confiscating the 'sinner's' car here, but preventing governmental intrusion into private lives (a core conservative value) would be against the seizure. So, this is purely a thing for the Religious Right, and violates basic conservative principles.

Have you ever heard of psychological scars being worse than physical scars? I would take a public whoopin' over losing 40K any day! The financial atom bomb this drops on a person, married or not, is devasting as anything ,short of death, the taliban did!

And the wisdom that this targets cheating husbands or something I find equally dangerous. What about some single father, doesn't want to entangle himself in a domestic relationship while raising his kids, chooses the company of a hooker, then finds himself without a car? How devestating is this?

And for all the protestations, the fact is, the religious right is firmly in control of the republican party and the conservative movement, and has been since Reagan.

I believe prostitution laws should be repealed. Is prostitution really the oldest profession? I thought farming was.

No, the Religious Right does not control the Repulican Party, or the conservative agenda. An important factor, certainly, but far from control. It is the same as the extreme liberal influence on Democratic Party. They have to bend to it somewhat in order to ensure their votes, but they also know that completely adopting their policies is a certain recipe for defeat, as you would lose the center. This is why there aren't any leaders of the Religious Right in any position of national power. The main item on the agendo of the Religious Right is to repeal abortion. Is this happening? No. How could this be if the Religious Right was in such firm control?

This issue aside, it sounds like we agree on discussion topic, CR. We both agree that the automobile seizure is unwarranted and unjustified. So, why stoop to such extreme assertions?

I guess it is one of those "you have to be here" type of things to see it Hobbes- one of the guys leading this charge is Jerry Prevo- the AK equivilent of Jerry Falwell (in fact they are good friends, Falwell makes regular trips here) - I don't think it is an extreme assertation- and it is part of every siezure law in this country that is not in itself a property crime.

Interesting thread. I am a retired police officer and I know first hand of this.

I think the confiscation of automobiles, houses, cash, etc is fundementally unlawful unless the person is convicted of a crime.

I am what I like to call a Constitutional Conservative (yeah, I made it up). There is nothing in the Constitution to even remotely authorize this action. In fact, it violates numerous sections....mainly the 'due process' clause.

But then, I also refused to participate in roadside blocks...which is basically setting up a road block and checking ID's of every driver looking for DUI's and such. Got suspended for that one.

I didn't care. Right is right...and just some lowly judge said it is okay, doesn't make it constitutionally correct.

Constitutional Amendment VIII: Emphasis mine.
The punishment does not fit the crime. If someone is soliciting prostitution, why should their car be taken away? Given the nature of the crime taking away someone's car is cruel and unusual, what if they need the car for an emergency the day it is taken away? This is a violation of both the eigth amendment and the fith, which Artemise already mentioned.

CP

Not to throw this off topic but I always thought that roadblocks were also basically entrapment, violating probable cause.

Once I got caught in a roadblock with one empty beer bottle in the car. Ok its agsainst the law, but I was FILMED by the local TV station in a town of around 6000 people. They did not air the footage but a few people had seen it enough that I was recognised by someone later, in public.
Seems a bit communist to me, or back to the days of public humiliation tactics.

There are a host of same scenario violations such as taking property from people that have died under the states care. They sieze everything including family heirlooms, photos, furniture,even wedding rings. This is outrageous!

So if this is so wrong (property siezure), why no public outcry? I believe we got on this slipery slope when we all thought it was fine that drug dealers property was seized for auction, and now its gone way too far.

If you are like most people, you also found that being innocent of a crime doesn't help you in this matter - you still have to hire an attorney and basically sue the government to get your stuff back.

Fun Fact: Roughly 80% of people who have their assets siezed are never even charged with a crime. ("Government Siezures Victimize Innocent," Andrew Schnieder and Mary Pat Flaherty, The Pittsburgh Press, Aug 16, 1991)

- Rick