• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa Supreme Court curbs police forfeitures

radcen said:
Iowa Supreme Court curbs police forfeitures

Iowa Supreme Court curbs police forfeitures
Click to expand...

That's not actually what the article said, only what the attorney for the appellant was quoted as saying that he hoped the decision would do.

The court merely found that in the case at bar the State trooper did not have sufficient cause to hold the motorist until a drug-sniffing dog could arrive to check for possible drugs. The court then sent the case back to the trial court to determine if the money could he held or must be returned to the appellant.

It is likely the money will be returned in this case due to the ruling that the officer violated the recent SCOTUS decision on stop and search by detaining him without probable cause in order to await a drug sniffing dog. See Rodriguez v. United States 575 U.S. __ (April 21, 2015).
 
Captain Adverse said:
That's not actually what the article said, only what the attorney for the appellant was quoted as saying that he hoped the decision would do.

The court merely found that in the case at bar the State trooper did not have sufficient cause to hold the motorist until a drug-sniffing dog could arrive to check for possible drugs. The court then sent the case back to the trial court to determine if the money could he held or must be returned to the appellant.

It is likely the money will be returned in this case due to the ruling that the officer violated the recent SCOTUS decision on stop and search by detaining him without probable cause in order to await a drug sniffing dog. See Rodriguez v. United States 575 U.S. __ (April 21, 2015).
Click to expand...
In a roundabout way it says that. The court said LE won't be getting a free pass to make stuff up.
 
Here is the actual decision:

Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the denial of Pardee's motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Click to expand...

In re Property Seized from Robert Pardee :: 2015 :: Iowa Supreme Court Decisions :: Iowa Case Law :: Iowa Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

From what I read, the decision was entirely about the validity of the detention leading to the drug dog search and subsequent arrest on a drug charge. That according to the SCOTUS decision a traffic stop must only be as long as it takes for the reason for the stop to be resolved (i.e. identify the driver and write the ticket) unless the officer has probable cause for a detention for a non-traffic reason.

That's all that was decided. The Iowa Supreme Court then remanded the case regarding asset forfeiture for the original lower court to resolve, without reference to the original criminal case (where he was arrested for drug possession but found not guilty).
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Here is the actual decision:

In re Property Seized from Robert Pardee :: 2015 :: Iowa Supreme Court Decisions :: Iowa Case Law :: Iowa Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

From what I read, the decision was entirely about the validity of the detention leading to the drug dog search and subsequent arrest on a drug charge. That according to the SCOTUS decision a traffic stop must only be as long as it takes for the reason for the stop to be resolved (i.e. identify the driver and write the ticket) unless the officer has probable cause for a detention for a non-traffic reason.

That's all that was decided. The Iowa Supreme Court then remanded the case for the original lower court to resolve.
Click to expand...
Right... and the specious reasons put forth by LE.
 
radcen said:
Right... and the specious reasons put forth by LE.
Click to expand...

The thing you fail to understand about asset forfeiture is that even if you are found not guilty of the original charge, you don't necessarily get the money/property back.

If property is being held for asset forfeiture, you will receive a notice of asset forfeiture from the government. Unfortunately, even if you are found not guilty in your criminal case or your charges are dropped, you do not automatically get this property back. If the government has claimed your property by asset forfeiture, you must be successful in a separate forfeiture case in order to get it back.
Click to expand...

Asset Forfeiture :: Denise Lieberman

He lost that case, citing that evidence of his arrest and the causal factors should have been suppressed. His appeal merely compels the lower court to review the case again using the Iowa Supreme Court's decision about what can and cannot be used when making the decision.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
The thing you fail to understand about asset forfeiture is that even if you are found not guilty of the original charge, you don't necessarily get the money/property back.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I've been railing about for over 30 years. No failure whatsoever. In fact, perfect understanding. And it's good that the courts are starting to reign that crap in, which is what this decision does (to a small degree).

LE gave a dumb reason, the court slapped them down and said, essentially, "You have to do better than that."
 
Captain Adverse said:
The thing you fail to understand about asset forfeiture is that even if you are found not guilty of the original charge, you don't necessarily get the money/property back.



Asset Forfeiture :: Denise Lieberman

He lost that case, citing that evidence of his arrest and the causal factors should have been suppressed. His appeal merely compels the lower court to review the case again using the Iowa Supreme Court's decision about what can and cannot be used when making the decision.
Click to expand...

That's rather the point, isn't it?

One can be perfectly innocent of any wrong doing, yet because of bad laws and bad cops, you lose your car, boat, airplane or house.
 
This is stupid. assets should not be taking hostage if no criminal charges are issued and the person not charged.

I can see asset freezing while the person remains in custody but until then no assets can be seized till wrong doing is proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom