Police officer uses "civil forfeiture" to take all of the money out of a hot dog vendor's wallet

[Rustic]

Na, until they are citizens they have no right to anything… At least that's the way it should be

When you say "should be", it means you admit they have constitutional rights. You just don't like the idea.

Political correctness gives them more rights than citizens, unfortunately

 

[radical right]

Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights, and should be treated as such…

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

United States Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, (1990)
No. 88-1353
Argued: November 7, 1989 Decided: February 28, 1990



After the Government obtained an arrest warrant for respondent - a Mexican citizen and resident believed to be a leader of an organization that smuggles narcotics into this country - he was apprehended by Mexican police and transported here, where he was arrested. Following his arrest, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, working with Mexican officials, searched his Mexican residences and seized certain documents. The District Court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the Fourth Amendment - which protects "the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures - applied to the searches, and that the DEA agents had failed to justify searching the premises without a warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 - where a majority assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights - the court observed that it would be odd to acknowledge that respondent was entitled to trial-related rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but not to Fourth Amendment protection.

 

[Rustic]

Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights, and should be treated as such…

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

United States Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, (1990)
No. 88-1353
Argued: November 7, 1989 Decided: February 28, 1990



After the Government obtained an arrest warrant for respondent - a Mexican citizen and resident believed to be a leader of an organization that smuggles narcotics into this country - he was apprehended by Mexican police and transported here, where he was arrested. Following his arrest, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, working with Mexican officials, searched his Mexican residences and seized certain documents. The District Court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the Fourth Amendment - which protects "the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures - applied to the searches, and that the DEA agents had failed to justify searching the premises without a warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 - where a majority assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights - the court observed that it would be odd to acknowledge that respondent was entitled to trial-related rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but not to Fourth Amendment protection.

Like a said illegal aliens have more rights than citizens in this country because of political correctness… Fuck the nanny state

 

[Confounding]

UPDATE:


Over $54K Raised for Vendor After Police Seize His Money

 

[hazlnut]

UPDATE:


Over $54K Raised for Vendor After Police Seize His Money

It would be funny if the city seized that too.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing claim it is a "work ethic from the Age of Iron" that is important in modern corporate welfare times?

 

[busybee01]

The police have no right to go through your wallet

Sure they do.

The man was selling goods without a permit. He was taking money from people. That money is evidence/proceeds of the crime. If he saw the man putting the cash in his wallet... boom.

No it is not boom. The officer just says what he saw and that is it. The money is not proof of anything by itself and any fine is not dependent on how much he made. It was a illegal seizure.

 

[Syriusly]

Forfeiture laws are ridiculous anyway....an invitation to police corruption

For a misdemeanor like not having a vendors license. A ticket and a fine should suffice

Anything that happens in California seems to be screwy, anyway..
Wonder if that guy speaking would be saying the same thing if that was a white guy selling hotdogs?

Of course not....illegal Mexicans have a free pass here...our laws do not apply to them...just ask any LefTard.

Let me know when you find anyone who says that all laws don't apply to illegal immigrants.

Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights, and should be treated as such…

According to the Constitution they do have rights- but who are we kidding- you have never read the Constitution....

 

[Syriusly]

Funny how the left claims to care so much about these poor immigrants just trying to make a living while they are here on video robbing one blind

Civil Forfeiture laws are really a Rightwing thing- which is why Jeff Sessions has announced he will be increasing Federal civil forfeiture.

I am against civil forfeiture laws myself- I don't think anyone's property should be legally seized unless convicted of a crime- and that property is related to the crimes.

 

[Syriusly]

Na, until they are citizens they have no right to anything… At least that's the way it should be

When you say "should be", it means you admit they have constitutional rights. You just don't like the idea.

Political correctness gives them more rights than citizens, unfortunately

And by 'more rights' you mean 'less rights'

Everyone in the United States is protected by the Bill of Rights- but citizens are protected by other rights- among them is that a citizen cannot be deported.

 

[Syriusly]

By the way- regarding this specific case- its technically not yet a civil forfeiture- technically the money was seized as 'evidence' - which may mean that the money will be returned if the vendor were to successfully fight the ticket. If he doesn't contest the ticket- I don't know.