Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > Speed Trap & Traffic Enforcement > Economics & Politics
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:

Economics & Politics Discussion of the economic and political market driving factors of automated enforcement technology.

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 2008-04-17
NMA Reporter NMA Reporter is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: 2008 Feb
Posts: 125
NMA Reporter is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Arkansas Appeals Court: No Conflict of Interest for Car Seizures

Article: Arkansas Appeals Court: No Conflict of Interest for Car Seizures

1996 Toyota CamryLaw enforcement agencies create no conflict of interest when they seize vehicles to keep for their own use, according to a ruling released Wednesday by the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The court's decision is designed to encourage police to continue taking cars from motorists whether or not the vehicle owners have been convicted of any crime.

The case in question began on May 26, 2006, when Carroll County Sheriff's Office seized the 1996 Toyota Camry registered to Adam Hammame, 22, and Susan Hammame. Officers at the scene grabbed the car after accusing the couple of selling marijuana to an informant. In July, the sheriff's office served notice on Hammame that the agency would keep his car for good. A Carroll County judge blocked the move by pointing out that state law prohibited agencies with a conflict of interest from having the responsibility of serving confiscation notices.

"The language of the statute makes it clear that the seizing agency is a party to this type of action, and has an interest in the outcome," Judge Alan D. Epley wrote.

The sheriff's office appealed, insisting that they be allowed to keep the Camry. Hammame's lawyers cited the state supreme court decision In re $3,166,199 which found that the Arkansas Highway Patrol "has a pecuniary interest affected by the court's disposition of the matter" of the seizure of $3.1 million in cash. The appeals court disagreed with Hammame and found that this monetary interest was irrelevant because the court remained in control of the confiscation process.

"The seizing agency is responsible for custody and inventory of the seized property, but may not dispose of it except as authorized by a court," appeals court Judges David M. Glover and Larry D. Vaught wrote.

Because the appellate judges found the sheriff's office was not a party to the suit, they ordered the lower court implement vehicle seizures despite any apparent conflicts. A full copy of the court's decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below. Source
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tennessee Appeals Court Reiterates Its Support for Red Light Cameras NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 1 2009-05-14 21:04
Florida Appeals Court Reinstates Toll Road Bills NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-10-16 09:30
California Appeals Court Defends Red Light Cameras NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-06-16 10:22
Trial By Declaration: Fight A Traffic Ticket Without Going To Court NMA Reporter NMA Articles 0 2008-05-17 19:37
Alaska: Appeals Court Cracks Down on Coercive Searches NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-04-25 02:56

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:58.

©2019 SpeedTrapHunter