High Speed Chases Ending in Death - Whose Fault Is It, Really?

[Dr Grump]

Down here, you now get your car confiscated and sold...

i like that... seems like it would be a deterent.

do cops carry guns there or is it like england? (sorry, never thought to ask before).

No. Those of rank of Detective or above get the choice. Most of them will carry at night, but not during the day....

 

[Dr Grump]

lets take this scenario.......car speeds by cop...cop takes plate and calls it in...but doesnt engage in a high speed chase......speeding car runs light at intersection...wipes out a family in another car....

now the cop is being condemned to doing nothing....

no win/win here

he would not have been able to stop it anyway....unless the guy was like Frank and pulled over....if not,the accident still happens....and then they start asking the question.....SHOULD THE COP HAVE PURSUED...theres 10 helicopters in the air when these things happen....the guy aint going anywhere....

Interestingly, I know one of the guys who used to work as a spotter in the Auckland police helicopter, and our govt is soooo PC, that even they have directives to stop a pursuit if they think it is getting out of control.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Down here, you now get your car confiscated and sold...

in California i think if you run its an automatic 2-3 years PLUS whatever happens during the chase........not sure though...

 

[jillian]

Down here, you now get your car confiscated and sold...

i like that... seems like it would be a deterent.

do cops carry guns there or is it like england? (sorry, never thought to ask before).

No. Those of rank of Detective or above get the choice. Most of them will carry at night, but not during the day....

thanks. it's so different from here. here it's all boys with toys.

although i saw what i thought was the most incredibly dangerous thing the other day. cop is crossing the street holding a pizza box with both hands. his gun was holstered but totally unguarded.... it looked to me like someone could sidle up next to him and grab his weapon...

all for a pizza.

 

[Immanuel]

More on my last:

U.S. Marshals Service, Asset Forfeiture, Assets

There are three goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program: enforcing the law; improving law enforcement cooperation; and enhancing law enforcement through revenue. Asset forfeiture is a law enforcement success story, and the Marshals Service plays a vital role.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which gave federal prosecutors new forfeiture provisions to combat crime. Also created by this legislation was the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF). The proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets such as real property, vehicles, businesses, financial instruments, vessels, aircraft and jewelry are deposited into the AFF and are subsequently used to further law enforcement initiatives.

Moreover, under the Equitable Sharing Program, the proceeds from sales are often shared with the state and local enforcement agencies that participated in the investigation which led to the seizure of the assets. This important program enhances law enforcement cooperation between state/local agencies and federal agencies.

Note: re my statement regarding forfeiture without trial:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5506.pdf

The following is found on page 25 of the document.

III. The forfeiture and the predicate
offense
If the prosecutor includes a forfeiture
allegation in the indictment, he or she also needs
to charge at least one criminal offense that
supports the forfeiture, and prove that charge
beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Because
criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant's
sentence, there can be no forfeiture in the criminal
case unless the defendant is convicted of such an
offense. If the conviction underlying a forfeiture
is reversed on appeal, the forfeiture may also be
lost. See, e.g., United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d
658, 670 (4th Cir. 2003) (criminal forfeiture
constitutes part of the sentence and is used to
enhance the punishment of a defendant who has
already been convicted of a particular offense; if
the underlying conviction is vacated, the
forfeiture based on that conviction must be
vacated as well).

Immie

 

[jillian]

Down here, you now get your car confiscated and sold...

i like that... seems like it would be a deterent.

do cops carry guns there or is it like england? (sorry, never thought to ask before).

I have never liked the asset forfeiture policies. It always seems to me like a reason for the cops to bust you and keep your car, cash, what have you. Whether or not they (the department) gets to keep the proceeds, especially when they can do it without a trial.

Saw this while looking up the info for this post. Love the URL?

http://www.fear.org/

Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Until FEAR achieved the nation's first major federal forfeiture law reform at the turn of the millenium, the government was allowed to keep whatever property it seized without ever having to prove a case. Seized property was presumed guilty and could be forfeited based upon mere hearsay—even a tip supplied by by an informant who stood to gain up to 25% of the forfeited assets. Owners were forced into the untenable situation of trying to prove a negative—that something never happened, even though no proof of any illegal act had been offered at trial.

USDOJ: Asset Forfeiture Program Home

Purpose: The primary mission of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is to employ asset forfeiture powers in a manner that enhances public safety and security. This is accomplished by removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals.

Scope: The Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program encompasses the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate federal crimes. Forfeiture may proceed under either administrative or judicial processes. Further, the DOJ program applies only to cases developed by enforcement officials in certain agencies of the Federal Government.

Immie

i think forfeiture is a perfectly appropriate remedy in certain circumstances.

i wouldn't pay much attention to a site called fear.org, though.

 

[Immanuel]

Down here, you now get your car confiscated and sold...

I have never liked the asset forfeiture policies. It always seems to me like a reason for the cops to bust you and keep your car, cash, what have you. Whether or not they (the department) gets to keep the proceeds, especially when they can do it without a trial.

Saw this while looking up the info for this post. Love the URL?

http://www.fear.org/



USDOJ: Asset Forfeiture Program Home

Purpose: The primary mission of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is to employ asset forfeiture powers in a manner that enhances public safety and security. This is accomplished by removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals.

Scope: The Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program encompasses the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate federal crimes. Forfeiture may proceed under either administrative or judicial processes. Further, the DOJ program applies only to cases developed by enforcement officials in certain agencies of the Federal Government.

Immie

i think forfeiture is a perfectly appropriate remedy in certain circumstances.

i wouldn't pay much attention to a site called fear.org, though.

That was why I Noted the name of the URL.

Upon conviction, is one thing and that I can understand. What always bugs me though is that say Creep Jones is driving his girlfriend's car and he's (unknown to her) transporting drugs in the car... she doesn't even know he uses. He gets busted... she loses the car.

That doesn't seem fair to me.

{sigh} I know she should do a better job of picking her friends.

And another thing, according to that one site, the cops get a cut of the take! Makes it almost like a business for them. Damned profitable too!

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More on my last:

U.S. Marshals Service, Asset Forfeiture, Assets

There are three goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program: enforcing the law; improving law enforcement cooperation; and enhancing law enforcement through revenue. Asset forfeiture is a law enforcement success story, and the Marshals Service plays a vital role.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which gave federal prosecutors new forfeiture provisions to combat crime. Also created by this legislation was the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF). The proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets such as real property, vehicles, businesses, financial instruments, vessels, aircraft and jewelry are deposited into the AFF and are subsequently used to further law enforcement initiatives.

Moreover, under the Equitable Sharing Program, the proceeds from sales are often shared with the state and local enforcement agencies that participated in the investigation which led to the seizure of the assets. This important program enhances law enforcement cooperation between state/local agencies and federal agencies.

Note: re my statement regarding forfeiture without trial:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5506.pdf

The following is found on page 25 of the document.

III. The forfeiture and the predicate
offense
If the prosecutor includes a forfeiture
allegation in the indictment, he or she also needs
to charge at least one criminal offense that
supports the forfeiture, and prove that charge
beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Because
criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant's
sentence, there can be no forfeiture in the criminal
case unless the defendant is convicted of such an
offense. If the conviction underlying a forfeiture
is reversed on appeal, the forfeiture may also be
lost. See, e.g., United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d
658, 670 (4th Cir. 2003) (criminal forfeiture
constitutes part of the sentence and is used to
enhance the punishment of a defendant who has
already been convicted of a particular offense; if
the underlying conviction is vacated, the
forfeiture based on that conviction must be
vacated as well).

Immie

I have to take issue with that. (Not with your post itself, the claim in red.)

Maybe the US Marshall's service is different, but most agencies pursue asset forfeiture as a civil matter, not a criminal one. This allows them to find property guilty, and never even charge anyone with a crime.

Civil Asset Forfeiture

 

[Harry Dresden]

Interestingly, I know one of the guys who used to work as a spotter in the Auckland police helicopter, and our govt is soooo PC, that even they have directives to stop a pursuit if they think it is getting out of control.

they do here too.. ...at least thats what the CHP spoksperson who they were talking to on the news during the chase has said.....he said when he gets to a less crowded place they may try to cause him to lose control and go into a ditch or something.....by using those strips they throw across the road that blows out the tires....

 

[Immanuel]

More on my last:

U.S. Marshals Service, Asset Forfeiture, Assets

There are three goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program: enforcing the law; improving law enforcement cooperation; and enhancing law enforcement through revenue. Asset forfeiture is a law enforcement success story, and the Marshals Service plays a vital role.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which gave federal prosecutors new forfeiture provisions to combat crime. Also created by this legislation was the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF). The proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets such as real property, vehicles, businesses, financial instruments, vessels, aircraft and jewelry are deposited into the AFF and are subsequently used to further law enforcement initiatives.

Moreover, under the Equitable Sharing Program, the proceeds from sales are often shared with the state and local enforcement agencies that participated in the investigation which led to the seizure of the assets. This important program enhances law enforcement cooperation between state/local agencies and federal agencies.

Note: re my statement regarding forfeiture without trial:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5506.pdf

The following is found on page 25 of the document.

III. The forfeiture and the predicate
offense
If the prosecutor includes a forfeiture
allegation in the indictment, he or she also needs
to charge at least one criminal offense that
supports the forfeiture, and prove that charge
beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Because
criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant's
sentence, there can be no forfeiture in the criminal
case unless the defendant is convicted of such an
offense. If the conviction underlying a forfeiture
is reversed on appeal, the forfeiture may also be
lost. See, e.g., United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d
658, 670 (4th Cir. 2003) (criminal forfeiture
constitutes part of the sentence and is used to
enhance the punishment of a defendant who has
already been convicted of a particular offense; if
the underlying conviction is vacated, the
forfeiture based on that conviction must be
vacated as well).

Immie

I have to take issue with that. (Not with your post itself, the claim in red.)

Maybe the US Marshall's service is different, but most agencies pursue asset forfeiture as a civil matter, not a criminal one. This allows them to find property guilty, and never even charge anyone with a crime.

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Thanks for that! I thought that I had heard that before, but in doing the search I stopped when I got to the criminal part.

Jillian, can you help here? Is this the case (still in effect today) that they can do this under civil penalty and not require a trial? Help me on that, how is that fair? If this is the case, how is any of our property protected from dishonest cops?

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture means the confiscation of property by the government when it considers it a civil rather than a criminal case. Seizure occurs when the government takes property. Forfeiture means the legal title is transferred to the government. The perpetrator is the property rather than the person. In normal civil cases, one person sues another person for something the other did, such as not fulfil a contract. But when the government uses civil forfeiture, there is no contract violation. The government also does not need to prove guilt. There is only some property which is considered to be an offense or associated with an offense, and the government just seizes it. Sometimes the police just keep it; usually, they sell it and keep the money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i think forfeiture is a perfectly appropriate remedy in certain circumstances.

i wouldn't pay much attention to a site called fear.org, though.

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights does some incredible work in this area

In April, 2000, FEAR achieved the nation's first major federal forfeiture law reform, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). The sponsor of the act, Rep. Henry Hyde, thanked FEAR in the April 11, 2000, congressional record "for their long and dedicated work on behalf of forfeiture reform." Though the final compromised version was stripped of many of the reforms for which we lobbied, for the first time since civil asset forfeiture laws were passed, under CAFRA the government:

Don't dismiss them because you don't like the acronym, it gives tham an advantage against people who think they have a right to take your property without charging you with a crime. You should make their website a regular stop just to keep informed, you will learn more than by watching the news.

 

[Immanuel]

i think forfeiture is a perfectly appropriate remedy in certain circumstances.

i wouldn't pay much attention to a site called fear.org, though.

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights does some incredible work in this area

In April, 2000, FEAR achieved the nation's first major federal forfeiture law reform, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). The sponsor of the act, Rep. Henry Hyde, thanked FEAR in the April 11, 2000, congressional record "for their long and dedicated work on behalf of forfeiture reform." Though the final compromised version was stripped of many of the reforms for which we lobbied, for the first time since civil asset forfeiture laws were passed, under CAFRA the government:

Don't dismiss them because you don't like the acronym, it gives tham an advantage against people who think they have a right to take your property without charging you with a crime. You should make their website a regular stop just to keep informed, you will learn more than by watching the news.

Jillian is pretty good on her facts.

She is, I believe an attorney and typically she does a good job of getting information when it is needed. I don't think she haphazardously disregards any site, but like I commented when I posted it, the URL almost gives it a conspiracy or maybe fear-mongering type feel to enter it. Typically fear-mongerers are not worth the time it takes to read their information.

Immie

 

[del]

i like that... seems like it would be a deterent.

do cops carry guns there or is it like england? (sorry, never thought to ask before).

No. Those of rank of Detective or above get the choice. Most of them will carry at night, but not during the day....

thanks. it's so different from here. here it's all boys with toys.

although i saw what i thought was the most incredibly dangerous thing the other day. cop is crossing the street holding a pizza box with both hands. his gun was holstered but totally unguarded.... it looked to me like someone could sidle up next to him and grab his weapon...

all for a pizza.

most police duty holsters are very difficult to draw the weapon from if you don't know how. something i learned when i went to citizens police academy and yes, i'm that much of a geek. sorry

Duty Holsters at CopsPlus

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i think forfeiture is a perfectly appropriate remedy in certain circumstances.

i wouldn't pay much attention to a site called fear.org, though.

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights does some incredible work in this area

In April, 2000, FEAR achieved the nation's first major federal forfeiture law reform, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). The sponsor of the act, Rep. Henry Hyde, thanked FEAR in the April 11, 2000, congressional record "for their long and dedicated work on behalf of forfeiture reform." Though the final compromised version was stripped of many of the reforms for which we lobbied, for the first time since civil asset forfeiture laws were passed, under CAFRA the government:

Don't dismiss them because you don't like the acronym, it gives tham an advantage against people who think they have a right to take your property without charging you with a crime. You should make their website a regular stop just to keep informed, you will learn more than by watching the news.

Jillian is pretty good on her facts.

She is, I believe an attorney and typically she does a good job of getting information when it is needed. I don't think she haphazardously disregards any site, but like I commented when I posted it, the URL almost gives it a conspiracy or maybe fear-mongering type feel to enter it. Typically fear-mongerers are not worth the time it takes to read their information.

Immie

I am willing to listen to any opinion based on facts, this was based solely on her reaction to the URL of the website.

 

[blu]

I guess the problem I have with not doing the chase is the ease in which license plates can be stolen from cars with the same color and make and the rest of the physical info in the dmw records. all it takes then is the owner of a junk yard, used car place, tow truck driver ,etc to work in cooperation with the criminal and tehy will bypass the license plate check.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

most police duty holsters are very difficult to draw the weapon from if you don't know how. something i learned when i went to citizens police academy and yes, i'm that much of a geek. sorry

Duty Holsters at CopsPlus

I do agree with you, but difficult is not the same as impossible, and, as far as I know, it is not illegal to sell those holsters to anyone who wants to buy one, I have seen them being sold in stores that are open to the public.

 

[Immanuel]

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights does some incredible work in this area

Don't dismiss them because you don't like the acronym, it gives tham an advantage against people who think they have a right to take your property without charging you with a crime. You should make their website a regular stop just to keep informed, you will learn more than by watching the news.

Jillian is pretty good on her facts.

She is, I believe an attorney and typically she does a good job of getting information when it is needed. I don't think she haphazardously disregards any site, but like I commented when I posted it, the URL almost gives it a conspiracy or maybe fear-mongering type feel to enter it. Typically fear-mongerers are not worth the time it takes to read their information.

Immie

I am willing to listen to any opinion based on facts, this was based solely on her reaction to the URL of the website.

Well, I don't know about you, but I read it as one of those, I wouldn't pay much attention to a site called fear.org. More just a comment on the name of the site itself.

I doubt she just dismissed it. Knowing her, she's checking her facts from some place else as we type this. If she is still online that is.

Immie

 

[George Costanza]

It's the fault of the person doing the running...

well, there are also questions as to what responsibility the police have in terms of safety in pursuing the people who are running.

Of course you're right, they need to use some judgement.

But simply giving a blanket no pursuit policy is a little absurd.

Of course. I, for one, never urged such a thing. Pursuits are often very necessary. My point is, that, more often, they are not. It is the latter type of pursuit that needs to be curtailed.

 

[George Costanza]

I am sick to death (being an ex LEO and all) with the media down here blaming police in blazing headlines when there is a fatality after a police chase. And I get annoyed because the person being chased is 100 percent at fault. Why? Let's take it to it's logical conclusion. If everybody knows that they can speed as fast as they like knowing the police HAVE to stop after a certain stage, then how many more people will to 'runners' from the police. And who do you think is going to do all the bitching and moaning about the roads being run 'by boy racing lunatics'? That's right, the same people who bitch and moan about police pursuits...

say what you really think, grump.

in all seriousness, i see your point 100%. i'm just wondering what precautions the police *should* take to avoid innocents getting hurt. i do think there should be extra penalties to the runners, though.

Back in the day I was in a car chase. An 18 year old had stolen a car. The little fucker side-swiped us into a power pole which caved in our front end. This was before air bags were compulsory. We weren't hurt, although the power lines came down and the police car behind us had its roof lights ripped off from the power lines. The prick crashed after side swiping us and as he got out of the car said "Fuck you pricks, I'll only get 6 months for this, out in 3". Unfortunately for him, there was a judge who was on his driveway watching all the fuss. Guess who this little bastido went up in front of? That judge. He got three years - and was ALL his fault....

All of this for a stolen car? This is precisely the type of case I am talking about. I would hate to get myself and/or my family killed by someone connected with a chase such as the one you describe here, all over a God damn stolen car - wouldn't you?

 

[ConHog]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

Step back further still, if the police had seen the guy commit an offense and done nothing, and that driver then went on to kill someone by driving recklessly, the drooling hordes would be whining that the police had the chance to stop him and did not.

Except he wouldn't have been driving in a manner that endangers others but for being chaserd ed by the cop in the first instance. Most of the death/injury from high speed chases I know about would clearly never have happend if the cop had not been pursuing.

I once had a case where my client got red lighted for a traffic offense. He had some meth in the car, so he took off. The cop pursued him. My client ended up blowing a red light and broadsiding a car on the driver's side. Driving the car was an 18-year-old girl. He caved in her entire face, that had to be reconstructed surgically. The DA had photos of her before and after. Before the accident, she was very beautiful. Afterwards, not.

All because some macho cop wasn't about to let someone disobey HIS command to stop.

Bull shit.

I would say that is ALWAYS true, I mean if the cops aren't pursing it isn't a high speed purshit, it's just some asshole speeding.

How can a cop EVER be at fault for doing their jobs? Let me pose this question. Let's say the LEO witnesses someone sideswip a car and attempt to pull them over. Let's say the criminal flees and the cop gives pursuit, let's say the cop ends up running into someone and killing them. Who is at fault?