Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Law Enforcement

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 9 March 2018, 15:51
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is offline
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: PNW
Posts: 6,493
When I was a LEO in CA, I kept running into uninsured/unlicensed drivers, and all of their vehicles had the same RO (a woman's name, unrelated to the drivers, every driver told me she was "a friend"). Since the drivers were unlicensed, I would have the car towed (can't leave it on the side of the street where the traffic stop occurred).

After this kept happening, I did a little checking around. I figured out that the woman was the daughter of the guy that owned/operated the tow/impound service we used.

Think about that for a second or two.
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 9 March 2018, 16:49
Sado_1's Avatar
Sado_1 Sado_1 is offline
Cynical and Grumpy
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Anywhere, USA
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavin View Post
Well, not so fast...the court ruling is about 1) what a "home" is, and 2) due process and excessive fines.

The court ruling protects "homes," regardless of location.

So, I park it on the judge's driveway. She tells me to remove it. I say "no." She can "trespass" me off of her driveway, but now I can't get to my home, and we have what lawyers call a "prescriptive easement" issue. Usually there is a time period required for a prescriptive easement (5 years is standard), but the case at hand may change that. If I spent the night in the car (in her driveway) before she asked me to leave, I may now have "tenant" rights which must be resolved before I can be evicted. Some states do not have a minimum time requirement to establish tenancy, nor do they require the tenancy to be lawful (i.e. squatters have tenancy rights).

Now, the due process and fines problem. Usually, when vehicles are impounded, the tow company gets to charge the RO towing and storage fees, and lien sale the vehicle if the RO doesn't pay in a set period of time.

Not anymore. The judge ruled that the fees may not exceed what the RO can pay. So the fees will have to become a lot less $$$, and now tow companies won't want to tow a car, as they can't recover fees and can't lien sale the car if the RO doesn't pay the fees.

So, most likely, the city will have to pay the tow fees in order for the tow companies to keep working, or the city will have to have a tow fleet of their own, as well as secure storage for towed vehicles. Cities may or may not choose to start spending lots of $$$ on tow operations and secure storage lots.

But, back to my Buick in the judge's driveway. If she wants it towed, she'll have to pay for the tow. The city may pay to keep the roads clear of cars, but not to get cars off of her private property.

There are a whole bunch of downrange effects that could come from this...
I do believe as the other said...you missed your calling in life, but it's not too late there Gav. Haha. I concur with what you're saying and understand it fully. I just see how the libtard movements never cease to try to argue loopholes and try to twist existing laws. I think the position you made is interesting, and I think that it will be even more interesting to see what happens here locally on the east coast in the coming years.

I know here, tow fees are technically ungodly, often in excess, and if you drive a beater, good luck. Your tow fees may well exceed the value of the vehicle before long, if you're say, locked up for a month or so.

I think its even more interesting the right to lien or auction property after so long. I wonder if similar arguments will be made in large drug seizures where we confiscate property such as anything of value of there any tax warrants, impose fines, seize existing monies for the purposes of taxing drugs if they have met certain weights etc. Later on, much of a drug dealers property (whatever was taken from drug related search warrants) is often retained by court order for the law enforcement agency either for use, or for sale or destruction. Firearms, money, personal property, you name it.

Very interesting.

My question about occupying the judges property now is this....
if I was the judge and you are the Buick driver, are you occupying my property before or after... what gives you the right to take your home and place it on my private property? Where is the line drawn currently? If I allowed you to park your home on my property later revoking my consent, yes I would have to evict you. However, no person can just simply live upon or about, another's personal property here in North Carolina. That would be like right now, you coming to my home and about my private property and parking your "home" upon my driveway uninvited and without consent. This (whether we classify it as a home or vehicle or other) would still be trespassing.... I cannot see how any person in the right mind wouldn't think so. It's no different than me owning 200 acres hypothetically, and you want to suddenly appear and park your trailer or mobile home on my land. It's my property and you haven't leased, purchased or received consent to be about my private property. I can see the crazy ass loon argument being made to public or undefined properties, streets, highways etc. I just cannot see the long term argument being made for private property. I don't know. You are one hell of a mind though Gavin...talk to me here...what do you foresee. I know the crazy civil laws currently have even gotten crazier. For example.. it use to be if you were not on a lease or what not, and did not receive mail, I could make you leave no problem. Now, for example... I let you come over and you spend the night. The next day I tell you to leave. You can technically "lie" to an officer, and say you've been there for an extended period of time and that you live with me, and I would in deed be forced to evict you. That's how many magistrates and judges are swaying at least in these parts of the state. Crazy.

It goes to their ultimate goal and objective... everything is "communal" and "collective". "What's mine is mine, and what yours is also mine" mentality.
__________________
"The space between life and death, that is where we are most alive"- Floki
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 9 March 2018, 17:38
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is offline
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: PNW
Posts: 6,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sado_1 View Post
...what do you foresee...
When I mentioned parking my Buick in the judge's driveway, I was making a point about liberal judges and their rulings "favoring" the downtrodden that said judges don't have to see in their Mercer Island neighborhoods. I know that is a stretch in most jurisdictions (but not all).

However, if the trespasser is a protected species of rat instead of me and my Buick, the private property owner may well be out of luck. Or, closer to your place in NC, if the trespasser is, in fact, some wetlands that the state decides is now on your property...I mean, what used to be your property...well, too bad. All your base are belong to us.

Both of the examples in the last paragraph would have been thought laughable 100 years ago. Not so funny today, as folks lose their private property regularly in those circumstances.

The judicial rulings of today set the precedent for tomorrow which determines the norm for next week. In CA, tenancy is established by a number of means. One of those means is paying rent. The rent does not have to be monetary. Something of value must have been exchanged. Could the item of value be sex? Yes. So, one person sleeps at another's home after sex. One night. Does that establish tenancy? Yes, it does. Does the law say that? No, but legal precedence in CA does.

Caveat Emptor...
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 9 March 2018, 18:38
8654maine 8654maine is offline
Another pool cleaner
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,402
My big thing with this ruling is buying land somewhere else where I can hunt/hike, pay taxes and find some squatter "living" there and finding that person can claim it as theirs.

Sort of "homesteading" on steroids.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 9 March 2018, 18:40
Whitebean54's Avatar
Whitebean54 Whitebean54 is offline
Time is a flat circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 3rd world in the 1st world
Posts: 2,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8654maine View Post
My big thing with this ruling is buying land somewhere else where I can hunt/hike, pay taxes and find some squatter "living" there and finding that person can claim it as theirs.

Sort of "homesteading" on steroids.
"They were dead when I found them" is what I think you meant to say
__________________
"Somewhere, theres a skeleton, a book sack and a log with a fat girls signature " Jumpcut

" a world class ass-clown who is running this jack-assery version of laser tag" USMC_ANGLICO
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12 March 2018, 18:28
Raider510 Raider510 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: CA
Posts: 23
In CA, there is a law on the books that addresses the issue of people staying on property they don't own, without the owner's permission.

647(e) P.C. -Every person.....Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place,
whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or
person entitled to the possession or in control of it.

This is a great catch-all that can be used to enforce "no trespassing" on public or private property. Of course, there are people questioning its constitutionality when it comes to "public places".
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 14 March 2018, 11:14
DuckMarshal's Avatar
DuckMarshal DuckMarshal is offline
Animal Tamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: U.S.
Posts: 1,956
I would pitch in for gas money and beanie weenies if you would go park in front of that judge's house in compliance with her ruling. Activist judges will be the death of our democracy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET