Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: NYPD Steals $18,000 from Man Because He Was Carrying a Banned Pocket Knife
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/nypd-steals-18000-knife-law/
Published: Sep 16, 2016
Author: Alice Salles
Post Date: 2016-09-17 14:59:03 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 12067
Comments: 50
In the past five years, the New York Police Department has spent $347,000 on false arrest lawsuit settlements. According to the Village Voice, these costs stem from the city’s “gravity knife statute.” Passed in 1958, the law banned New York residents from carrying knives fitted with blades that fall out of the handle as the user points them toward the ground while pushing the lever. This antiquated law is responsible for thousands of yearly arrests, despite the fact that current knife designs bear no resemblance to the blades of yesteryear. But estimates suggest that over the past ten years, this particular ban has been the reason for the prosecution of “60,000 New Yorkers … many of them working people who use folding knives as part of their jobs.” A recent incident shows another unintended consequence of upholding the gravity knife statute — one that cost a South Bronx resident $18,000. In a very public tweet, the NYPD announced Sunday that officers from Police Service Area 7 had “arrested a male for a gravity knife and vouchered $18,000 dollars cash for forfeiture.” The triumphant tweet, The Village Voice pointed out, even “[publicized the prisoner’s] name and address, down to the apartment number.” By coupling an outdated law with civil asset forfeiture rules — which in New York state, happen to be draconian — officers managed to take advantage of yet another property owner in order to “prop up” the local police budget. While few details about the arrest were made public, the Village Voice added, many on Twitter commented that the model of knife the arrestee was carrying “appear[ed] to be a style often carried by first responders, with a feature designed for safely cutting clothes and tangled seat belts after, say, a car accident.” The news outlet reached out to the NYPD for more information, but officers failed to respond with more details. The gravity knife ban was tweaked in June when Democrats added an amendment to the state law clarifying “the definition of a gravity knife by excluding any folding knife with a ‘bias toward closure.’” The change has yet to be signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. But even if it’s signed, this change to the state law does little to protect the New Yorkers’ constitutional right to own and carry any means of self-defense. Nevertheless, it could help to limit the number of individuals framed by the NYPD over folding knives and pocket knives, which are often “used for work or passed down in a family.” Even if the tweak to the state’s knife ban is finally signed into law, this measure, alone, will not be enough because the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws remain intact. Until serious criminal justice reforms are passed in the Empire State, New Yorkers will continue to be bullied in the name of policing for profit.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
This falsely claims forfeiture due to carrying banned pocket knife. Cash and other property is seized upon belief that is was involved in an illegal enterprise, such as drug dealing. If the owner can show that he lawfully possessed the money, he may get it back.
What exactly was the man charged with? Illegal possession of a banned pocket knife or carry excess amount of cash? We still have Due Process in this country where one is innocent until proven guilty. The burden rests solely on the officers to prove this guy broke the law. Not the other way around.
I agree with you. You know innocent until priven guilty.
An action in rem determines lawful ownership of property, not guilt or innocence of a person.
An action in rem determines lawful ownership of property, not guilt or innocence of a person.[Emphasis added here] Not so especially where the court has no personal jurisdiction over the person. If they have no personal jurisdiction over the person then they also have no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Google is your friend. I am not your secretary. The sentence begins, "With contraband or the fruits of criminal activity...." This is ridiculous. Read my #31 again. IN RE FORFEITURE $180,975, 478 Mich. 444 (Mich. 2007) A civil asset forfeiture proceeding is a CIVIL proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has no application whatsoever to civil proceedings. Seizure is not pursuant to a subpoena which is used to require one to appear at a judicial proceeding. A subpoena duces tecum requires one to bring specified relevant documents when one appears. A warrant may be issued for a search. There are exceptions to the requirement for a warrant. If, in the course of an illegal search law enforcement finds your 100 pounds of marijuana, they will lawfully seize it, and the government will never return it to you. If you go through customs at the airport, the customs may examine, as distinguished from inspect, your bags. It can be done on a predetermined random selection basis for the day, perhaps a digit of your social security number to hit every tenth passenger. You and your bags would be taken to a private room and your bags would be opened and the inspector can look inside everything. If an item is found that is unlawful to possess, it is seized. You are taken into custody. No warrant is required. The evidence is admissible. If the item is your marijuana, you do not see it again, except as evidence. You are misinformed as to criminal cases as well. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) 1. "The exigencies of the situation," in which the officers were in pursuit of a suspected armed felon in the house which he had entered only minutes before they arrived, permitted their warrantless entry and search. McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 335 U. S. 456. Pp. 387 U. S. 298-300. 2. The distinction prohibiting seizure of items of only evidential value and allowing seizure of instrumentalities, fruits, or contraband is no longer accepted as being required by the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 387 U. S. 300-310. (a) There is no rational distinction between a search for "mere evidence" and one for an "instrumentality" in terms of the privacy which is safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment; nor does the language of the Amendment itself make such a distinction. Pp. 387 U. S. 301-302. (b) The clothing items involved here are not "testimonial" or "communicative," and their introduction did not compel respondent to become a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757. Pp. 387 U. S. 302-303. Page 387 U. S. 295 (c) The premise that property interests control government's search and seizure rights, on which Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, partly rested, is no longer controlling as the Fourth Amendment's principal object is the protection of privacy, not property. Pp. 387 U. S. 303-306. (d) The related premise of Gouled that government may not seize evidence for the purpose of proving crime has also been discredited. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a search for that purpose provided that there is probable cause, as there was here, for the belief that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. Pp. 387 U. S. 306-307. (e) The remedy of suppression, with its limited functional consequence, has made possible the rejection of both the related Gouled premises. P. 387 U. S. 307. (f) Just as the suppression of evidence does not require the return of such items as contraband, the introduction of "mere evidence" does not entitle the State to its retention if it is being wrongfully withheld. Pp. 387 U. S. 307-308. (g) The numerous and confusing exceptions to the "mere evidence" limitation make it questionable whether it affords any meaningful protection. P. 387 U. S. 309. 363 F.2d 647, reversed.
Google is to case law as statutory positive law is to my friend. Again, I ask of you to define what is contraband according to the actual statutory law the judge used. Not case law.
Again, I ask of you to define what is contraband according to the actual statutory law the judge used. Not case law. Do it yourself. Buy a dictionary.
#43. To: nolu chan (#40)
That case law you referenced does not define "contraband" and therefore it has no relevance whatsoever to the case against this individual whose property was illegally seized. The only time case law should be referenced is when it parallels your situation including statutory law. This is very important to emphasize because it not only establishes (1) where the court has jurisdiction over you and the case but that (2) this case and the statutes (civil or criminal) provided apply to your case. The necessity of applying case law in one's Memorandum of Points and Authorities are used only to prove the existence of the statutory law that supports it. Case law is not the law but instead is evidence of the existing statutory law that supports it.
Just below is a link to a statute concerning contraband. Copy and paste unto the URL and when you get there look below the Yellow highlighted Part 8. I do not recall any statute ever referenced in that citation you mentioned in this thread. You don't just throw out the words "contraband" at somebody without realizing the negative connotation it has. Furthermore, it is a criminal offense. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=Title+28%2FChapter+I%2FPart+8&granuleId=CFR-2005-title28-vol1-part6&packageId=CFR-2005-title28-vol1&oldPath=Title+28%2FChapter+I%2FPart+8&fromPageDetails=true&collapse=true&ycord=1846
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest NYPD Steals $18,000 from Man Because He Was Carrying a Banned Pocket Knife
#17. To: nolu chan (#1)
"...If the owner can show that he lawfully possessed the money, he may get it back."
#22. To: goldilucky (#17)
#29. To: A K A Stone, goldilucky (#22)
I agree with you. You know innocent until priven guilty.
#32. To: nolu chan (#29)
(Edited)
#37. To: goldilucky (#32)
With contraband or the fruits of criminal activity, the government can seize the property and the court can hold an in rem proceeding to determine ownership.
Nonsense here! Define "contraband".
They can unlawfully search and still seize the property.
Anything seized without a court order subpoena, is treated as unlawful seizure under the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.
In deciding these questions, we first hold that under Immigration Naturalization Service v Lopez-Mendoza, 468 US 1032; 104 S Ct 3479; 82 L Ed 2d 778 (1984), illegally seized property is not immune from forfeiture. We also agree with the holding in United States v $639,558, 293 US App DC 384, 387; 955 F2d 712 (1992), that property subject to forfeiture that was illegally seized "is not 'excluded' from the proceeding entirely." Instead, the illegally seized property "may be offered into evidence for the limited purpose of establishing its existence, and the court's in rem jurisdiction over it." Id.
Held:
#39. To: nolu chan (#37)
Google is your friend. I am not your secretary. The sentence begins, "With contraband or the fruits of criminal activity...."
#40. To: goldilucky (#39)
Google is to case law as statutory positive law is to my friend.
Replies to Comment # 40.
#44. To: nolu chan (#40)
(Edited)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]