2 Broke 2 Greedy?

Taking Hollywood promotional tie-ins to a whole new level, the Los Angeles City Council marked the opening of 2 Fast 2 Furious this Friday by passing an ordinance allowing cops to confiscate and then sell cars deemed to have been used for street racing. Under existing law, L.A. police can impound the cars of both racers and spectators, but owners can retrieve them after paying a $300 fine. If Mayor James Hahn signs the ordinance into law, the cars will instead be auctioned, with the proceeds being dumped into the city?s general fund. Which, coincidentally, is expected to reach a deficit of nearly $280 million this year.

Comments

[Warren]

I think the problem here is that the sate profits from enforcing this law. That almost guarantees corruption. How long before simple speeding (already a corrupt 'lottery tax' scam) gets bumped up to 'street racing' and confiscation.

[Evilcor]

Ever wonder why the Hundred Years' War took so long?
The mercenaries who fought it made a profit.
Wonder how long it will take to crush crimes punishable by asset forfeiture. . .

[Plutarck]

In Britain they have taken to doing the same thing with alchohol and cigarettes; I recall one story where a woman was bringing a good deal of alchohol from France for her birthday party - which is perfectly legal - and had her car confiscated by the British police on _suspicion_. They had to prove nothing, and no proof would be acceptable, and they auction or destroy all their pilfered goods.

Various "anti-drug" measures in the US are taking on similar qualities and procedures, and now we see them being applied to street racing. Isn't it funny how they just so happen to end up doing this with crimes where the goods seized have a high resale value, like cars, houses, and suped-up automobiles?

Isn't it nice to know that the government so freely and happily throws away silly things like the burden of proof and right to due process? Which, concidentally, is just precisely how totalitarian regimes manage their populaces: by making people afraid to even _seem_ like they might, somehow, be breaking some law. Add a bevy of ambiguous laws in with a "ban everything we don't like" body of laws, and people are easily made afraid first to do anything out of the ordinary (that which is not obviously OK), and then later (with selective and arbitrary use of laws and prosecution) to do anything which isn't explicitly sanctioned by the government.

And so a formerly free society takes yet one more step towards it's polar opposite.

[Jim]

How long before the standard fine for speeding becomes car forfeiture? That is what we're talking about, after all.

[omnibus bill]

>>How long before the standard fine for speeding
>>becomes car forfeiture? That is what we're
>>talking about, after all.

No it's not. Not at all.

Unlike the street racing in the movies, street racing in real life is dangerous, not infrequently resulting in the death of the participants and lucky bonus innocent bystanders, too. The D.C. area, where I live, has had a handful of spectacular street racing deaths in the last few months. By spectacular, I mean two or three people killed at once, dragged out of a car that is comprised to the size of a sofa, wrapped around a light pole, a house or another car. At least one of the knuckleheads in the local incidents has killed totally innocent people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. All the recent crashes have been in crowded, heavily trafficked neighborhoods. The crimes are often compounded with other crimes, such as fleeing the scene of the accident (for the co-adventurers), reckless driving, and DWI.

Trying to make a libertarian argument against this draconian policing of street racing is like trying to make a libertarian argument against the draconian laws forbidding you from firing your .45 down a crowded street.

[Plutarck]

Wait a second here...the law doesn't apply to mere suspicion? IE - they actually have to prove a dangerous crime has been committed?

Oh, well in that case I don't have nearly such a problem with it - assuming the car is owned by the violator.

In a case such as that, I say "Confiscate away!"

[joe]

I'm with Pluto. If this were post-conviction, I'd have no problem.

[Phil]

Did anyone actually click the link?

"Under the law, a person who races his car in front of spectators or against other vehicles would have to forfeit it to the city. The city would then sell the vehicles and the money would go to the general fund.

Deputy City Atty. Asha Greenberg said the cars of street racers would be immediately confiscated. Offenders would be given a receipt for the car, paperwork explaining the ordinance and a claim form to fill out if they believe their car was unjustly impounded. Cars that had been reported stolen would not be subject to forfeiture, she said."

"Immediately confiscated" is not only not post-conviction, it makes conviction irrelevant.

[omnibus bill]

>>Immediately confiscated" is not only not post-conviction, it makes conviction irrelevant.

But you also write that there is due process if you believe the confiscation is in error. So how does the confiscation make the conviction irrelevant? It would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to get your car back if you win in court.

Of course the police also confiscate your car on the spot in many states when you are caught driving drunk, or involved in a hit and run. They also confiscate your contraband narcotics on the spot, in spite of the fact that you paid good money for them and you are the legal owner; and if you are caught waving a gun around whilst ambling down main street, you can expect to have that confiscated as well. This is a pretty common measure. If you are going at sufficient speed in a number of states, it is a felony or near-felony that not only gets your car confiscated, but which lands you directly in jail until you can be arraigned. I somehow don't think people going 37 in a 30 zone are going to be arrested under this law.

I agree that the burden-shifting scenario is a bit oppressive, but it's still constitutional. It is also probably congruent to the threat posed by a pair (or more) of cars going 120 down a public side street. Somehow warning the racers or issuing them a minor ticket, and then letting them drive away, strikes me as utterly lacking deterrent effect for a pretty dangerous crime. After all, if a felony charge of reckless driving doesn't bother you, why would a ticket? In contrast, liquor store robbery appears less dangerous to the general public...

What do you recommend? A warning?

Or shouldn't the state have the power to infringe on my fundamental right of street racing whatsoever?

If you want to race, you can go to track day. Most major race tracks host open days from time to time, where you pay a hundred bucks or so, and race around to your heart's content -- without putting everyone else on the road at risk. There are dozens of drag strips around the country where you can do the same thing, if going in a straight line is your thing.