WELCOME TO THE LINE.
THIS WEEK A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED THAT ALBUQUERQUE PROGRAM
THAT SEIZES VEHICLES AFTER SOMEONE IS ARRESTED FOR THEIR
SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT DUI OFFENSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NEW MEXICO MADE CHANGES TO THE STATE LAW IN 2015 WHICH
INCLUDED A BAN ON CIVIL FORFEITURE OR BETTER KNOWN AS
THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A CONVICTION, BUT
WHETHER THAT BAN PREEMPTS ALL LOCAL CIVIL FORFEITURE
ORDINANCES IS UP FOR DEBATE.
ALBUQUERQUE IS ONE OF FEW NEW MEXICO CITIES THAT STILL HAS A
VEHICLE SEIZURE PROGRAM.
FORCING VEHICLE OWNERS TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE IF THEIR
CAR WAS SEIZED AFTER BEING DRIVEN BY SOMEONE ELSE.
THIS WEEK'S RULING WILL CHANGE THINGS CERTAINLY.
LINE OPINION PANELISTS ARE READY TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE
AND WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN ACROSS THE STATE.
I AM JOINED BY LAURA SANCHEZ-RIVET, AN ATTORNEY AT
CUDDY & MCCARTHY LLP, RACHEL SAMS IS HERE, EDITOR OF
ALBUQUERQUE BUSINESS FIRST, AND DANIEL FOLEY, FORMER HOUSE
MINORITY WHIP IS WITH US, AND WELCOME BRAND NEW PANELIST,
MARCO TORREZ, A SENIOR AT UNM IN THE JOURNALISM DEPARTMENT
STUDYING BROADCASTING JOURNALISM.
>> NICE TO MEET YOU.
>> GLAD YOU'RE HERE AT THE TABLE.
>> LAURA, THIS CASE BEGAN WITH ARLEEN HARJO.
HE SON WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI.
SHE HAD LENT THE KID THE CAR.
HE HAD GONE TO ANOTHER TOWN IN NEW MEXICO AND GOT ARRESTED
AND SOMEHOW SHE HAD TO PAY FOUR GRAND TO GET THIS CAR
BACK, HAVE IT BOOTED FOR 18 MONTHS.
FINALLY A JUDGE SAID, NO, THIS IS NOT QUITE RIGHT.
LET'S TAKE THIS BASICS HERE.
WHY WAS THIS ALLOWED TO GO ON SO LONG IN YOUR OPINION?
A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR CARS SEIZED HERE.
THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR A LONG TIME IN ALBUQUERQUE.
>> WELL, IT HAS BEEN BUT LIKE A LOT OF PROBLEMATIC OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES OR LAWS, IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR
THE COURT SYSTEM TO REALLY RESOLVE A SITUATION LIKE THIS.
FIRST SOMEBODY HAD TO HAVE THE MEANS TO CHALLENGE THIS IN
COURT, WHICH IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH, FIND ATTORNEYS WHO ARE
ABLE TO TAKE THE CASE.
AND IT WAS A FEDERAL JUDGE, FEDERAL COURT CASE, SO IT IS
EXPENSIVE TO BRING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
WHAT IS UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE PROBABLY WHO HAD VEHICLES
SEIZED WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE MEANS TO CHALLENGE IT, WERE
SIMPLY OUT OF LUCK.
AND THIS IS A VERY PROBLEMATIC SITUATION.
I KNOW THERE IS CRITICISM ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME.
ACLU CRITICIZED IT WHEN FIRST ENACTED AS AN ORDINANCE AND
BASICALLY THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT
YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR PROPERTY SEIZED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS SITUATION AND
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE CONSTITUTIONALLY, 105 PAGE
OPINION THAT JUDGE BROWNING WROTE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I
THINK THEY DEFINITELY NEED TO MAKE CHANGES.
>> DAN, TALKING ABOUT PROVING YOUR INNOCENT AFTER THE FACT.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER CUT OF LIFE WHERE YOU HAVE TO DO
IT AFTER THE FACT.
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THIS?
KELLER ADMINISTRATION SAYS WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT IT, BASIC
IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SITUATION.
WHAT IS UPSHOT HERE FOR PEOPLE?
>> UPSHOT IS, NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS TYPE OF PROCESS HAS
BEEN FUNDING POLICE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
FOR YEARS.
THERE IS NO LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY SET UP OUTSIDE
PLACES WHERE THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET BETTER TYPE CARS OR
GET PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO FIGHT IT.
WHEN YOU HEAR THE JUDGE SAY THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH HAVING
A PROGRAM THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO RUN THE PROGRAM ARE FUNDED
BY THE SALE OF THE STUFF THAT IS FORFEITED, IS JUST
DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO WHAT THE COUNTRY STANDS FOR.
AND THE SHEER FACT THAT ONE OF THE FEW INSTANCES THAT YOU ARE
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT AND YOU'RE NEVER REALLY
INNOCENT BECAUSE IT COST YOU EVEN IF YOU'RE INNOCENT TO GET
SOMETHING DONE.
YOU CAN GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, NOT HAVE ANY FAULT,
NOT BE GUILTY OF ANYTHING BUT DOESN'T MATTER UNLESS YOU
WRITE A CHECK FOR THOUSANDS YOU'RE STILL OUT YOUR
PROPERTY.
CIVIL FORFEITURE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR 20 PLUS YEARS.
POLICE DEPARTMENTS LOVE IT.
IT IS UNBELIEVE -- FEDS LOVE IT.
ALL LEVEL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THINGS THIS IS PHENOMENAL AND
ANY TIME YOU OPPOSE IT, YOU'RE OPPOSING THE POLICE.
AND JUDGE BROWNING GOT IT RIGHT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS
IS NOT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY RUNS.
YOU GUYS DON'T GET TO GO OUT AND DECIDE YOU'RE NOT THE
JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER AND THAT IS THE WAY THE LAW
WORKS.
>> AT THE CURB SIDE.
>> IT'S GOOD SOMEONE FOUGHT IT.
I AM GLAD JUDGE BROWNING RENDERED THE DECISION THAT I
THINK IS -- THE OTHER THING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DECISION,
I THINK HE RENDERED A THOUGHTFUL DECISION, ONE THAT
ACTUALLY LAYED THE FRAMEWORK FOR FIXING IT, NOT JUST, HEY,
IT IS A BAD DECISION AND FIGURE IT OUT.
HE SAYS THIS IS WHY IT IS BAD AND THESE ARE THINGS NOT GOOD
ABOUT THIS.
HE LAID FRAMEWORK FOR IT TO BE EASILY FIXED.
>> WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WORKING
CLASS PEOPLE, POOR PEOPLE, HAVING THEIR NO. 1 ASSET
SEIZED.
THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR FAMILIES.
YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMEONE'S VEHICLE AND DEMAND TO HAVE A
BOOT ON IT FOR 18 MONTHS AND NOT EXPECT UPSET INSIDE THAT
FAMILY'S FINANCES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> THIS IS A BASIC THING.
HERE IN ALBUQUERQUE YOU NEED A CAR TO MOVE ANYWHERE, WORK,
TAKE KIDS TO SCHOOL, ANYWHERE, JUST TO LIVE, YOU NEED A CAR.
IF WE WERE A BIGGER TRANSPORTATION HUB LOCATION
LIKE SAN FRANCISCO, NEW YORK, YOU COULD USE THE BUSES, THE
TRANSIT, YOU CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN'T HERE.
WHEN YOU TAKE A CAR AWAY YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THEIR
ENTIRE LIFE UNTIL THEY GET ANOTHER CAR.
BUT PEOPLE IN LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLD THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO
DO THAT.
THEY HAVE TO RELY ON THE BUS TRANSPORTATION WHICH HAS BEEN
PROVEN HASN'T BEEN AS RELIABLE AS OTHER BIGGER LOCATIONS HAVE
BEEN.
SO, I FEEL LIKE WHEN ALBUQUERQUE PD HAS BEEN TAKING
AWAY THE CARS AND EVEN OTHER LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND PROVEN IT IS SHOWING DETRIMENT EFFECTS
AGAINST THE FAMILY.
WHY IS IT THAT SOMEONE WHO IS INNOCENT THAT HASN'T BEEN
ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED ANY OF THESE CRIMES BEING HELD
RESPONSIBLE WHEN THAT OTHER PERSON WHO THEY LENT THE CAR
TO IS GETTING OFF SCOTT FREE?
>> ISN'T THAT INTERESTING.
WHY AREN'T THEY PAYING THE FOUR GRAND.
THE PERSON BEHIND THE WHEEL.
>> WHEN I READ SOME OF THE COMMENTS ON FACEBOOK AND OTHER
PLACES, THE STORIES HAVE BLOWN UP THIS WEEK, CERTAINLY, IT'S
INTERESTING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT,
YOU SHOULD KNOW WHO IS DRIVING YOUR CAR.
TOUGH LUCK FOR YOU.
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
AND I JUST CAN'T HELP BUT THINK, MAYBE THE PEOPLE THAT
CAME UP WITH THE ORDINANCE WAS SORT OF OUT OF THAT SAME
THOUGHT PROCESS.
THEY NEVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
EASY TO SAY WHAT SOMEBODY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE DOING
BUT LIFE IS COMPLICATED.
YOU NEVER KNOW.
>> THAT IS AN INTERESTING POINT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I FIND INTERESTING ABOUT THIS CASE,
THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THERE OF LIKE WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS GROUP RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT WE DIDN'T GET TO THOSE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THE JUDGE
WAS UNEQUIVOCAL.
IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT DOESN'T
WORK.
AS WE DISCUSSED, THE HARM THAT WAS DONE TO THE FOLKS WHO HAD
VEHICLES SEIZED, AFFECTS THE ABILITY TO MAKE INCOME, GET TO
THE DOCTOR, JUST THE BASIC THINGS OF LIFE.
>> CAN YOU IMAGINE BEING TOLD YOU NEED FOUR GRAND AND 18
MONTHS OF A BOOT TO GET YOUR CAR BACK FOR SOMETHING THAT
YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF, THAT THE INFRACTION HAPPENED ALMOST
HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY.
INSANE.
>> DAN MENTIONED THE FUNDING GOING TOWARDS PAYING THE
PEOPLE ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.
SHOULD IT HAVE GONE TO THE GENERAL FUND INSTEAD?
WHERE SHOULD THIS MONEY HAVE GONE?
BUT TO DAN'S POINT, HOW WOULD THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAID
OTHERWISE TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM?
IT IS AN INTERESTING DILEMMA HERE, FINANCIALLY.
>> I MEAN, IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE
GENERAL FUND.
IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A POLICY TO BEGIN WITH BUT IT'S
PROBLEMATIC TO HAVE, ESPECIALLY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT,
TO HAVE THE PROFIT, I GUESS IS ONE TERM, BUT BASICALLY THE
REVENUES COME FROM A PROGRAM, GOING BACK DIRECTLY INTO
FUNDING THOSE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THAT PROGRAM, BECAUSE THEN
THERE IS AN INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO KEEP WORKING TO SEIZE MORE
CARS IN ORDER TO KEEP FUNDING THEIR POSITIONS, THEIR
COLLEAGUES JOBS.
IT SHOULD GO TO THE GENERAL FUND AND THEY SHOULD GET PAID
OUT OF SOME BUDGET THAT IS PART OF THE GENERAL FUND.
>> WOULDN'T IT BE EASY TO PREDICT, THOUGH, THAT IS A
RECIPE FOR DISASTER?
LIKE LOOKING AT IT ON PAPER, WOULD YOU THINK?
>> THERE SHOULD BE SOME VERY BASIC -- AND I THINK THIS
TENDS TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT COME FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHERE
THERE ISN'T AN APPRECIATION NECESSARILY ABOUT MAKING SURE
THAT THINGS ARE BEING DONE PROPERLY IN TERMS OF PUBLIC
PRINCIPLES AND THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE CRITICISMS
ABOUT THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND THINKS IT SHOULD BE MORE
EFFICIENTLY RUN LIKE A BUSINESS.
THERE IS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A BUSINESS
AND BEING ABLE TO TAKE IN MONEY AND USE THAT TO PAY FOR
WHATEVER YOUR OPERATIONS ARE.
IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM A PUBLIC SECTOR SITUATION
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WHERE THERE IS
THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE INCENTIVES THAT ARE NOT -- YOU
REALLY DON'T WANT TO TIE THAT KIND OF INCENTIVE INTO A
PERSON'S DAY-TO-DAY, SO IT REALLY JUST WAS FLAWED FROM
THE START.
>> RACHEL, YOU KNOW, THIS COULD BE -- SOMEBODY AT THE
TABLE MENTIONED THIS.
DAN MENTIONED THIS COULD BE THE START OF SOMETHING
NATIONALLY.
WHAT IS INTERESTING TO ME IS WE HAD THE FIRM COME IN FROM
VIRGINIA AND ARGUE THIS CASE FOR MS.
HARJO WHO HAD HER CAR TAKEN.
AND I AM CURIOUS WHY WASN'T THERE A LOCAL PUSH FOR THIS?
WHY DID A VIRGINIA FIRM HAVE TO COME IN AND SOLVE THIS?
DID WE GET SORT OF SHOWN UP HERE A LITTLE BIT?
I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER
EXPERTISE OR THE DESIRE LOCALLY TO CHALLENGE THAT
POLICY WAS THERE, I AM NOT SURE, BUT I AM SURE THAT
MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE LOOKING
AT THIS RIGHT NOW AND THINKING, WE BETTER MAKE
CHANGES FAST IF WE HAVE A POLICY LIKE THIS.
>> A MINUTE AND A HALF ON THIS.
MARCO, DAN MENTIONED EARLIER, TALKING BEFORE WE AIRED, THIS
GOES BEYOND VEHICLES.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MONEY.
WE HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE HAD COLD HARD EARNED
CASH TAKEN FROM THEM HERE IN THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA FOR JUST
A SIMPLE REASON THAT PEOPLE IN THE STREET DECIDED TO MEET OUT
CURB-SIDE JUSTICE AND THE PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE CASH FOR
THE RIGHT REASONS.
>> JUST AS UPSETTING.
>> WHERE DOES IT GO?
WHAT DO THEY DO WITH IT?
IS IT GOING BACK INTO THEIR PROBLEM?
IS IT GOING BACK INTO THE PROGRAM?
WE NEED ANSWERS AND THOSE ANSWERS THAT WE DO GET FROM
THIS PROGRAM THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, HOW THIS IS
GOING INTO THE POCKETS OF THE OFFICERS TO KEEP IT RUNNING,
THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.
I WANT TO SAY, STOP THAT, AND GIVE THE PEOPLE, THE INNOCENT
PEOPLE, THEIR CARS BACK.
IF IT WAS THE PERSON -- IF THE PERSON WHO GOT PULLED OVER, IF
IT WAS THEIR CAR, YEAH, OKAY, THEN I UNDERSTAND, TAKE AWAY
THE CAR, THEY PAY THE PUNISHMENT.
THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MISTAKES.
WE GET THAT.
HOWEVER, DON'T GO AND USE THAT CAR TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN
OFFICERS' PAYCHECKS BECAUSE THEN THAT IS MORE INCENTIVE
FOR THEM TO PULL MORE PEOPLE OVER AND --
>> EVERY CITY, EVERY STATE, EVERY COUNTY THIS HAPPENS.
THESE PERVERSE INCENTIVES BECOME PERVERTED.
WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE LINE, WE'LL DISCUSS REACTIONS TO A
POTENTIAL REPEAL OF A MAJOR EDUCATION LAWSUIT THAT THE
JUDGE RECENTLY RULED ON IN NEW MEXICO.
For more infomation >> TAG CASAL: QUEM É MAIS PROVÁVEL QUE? | RELACIONAMENTO À DISTÂNCIA | WHO IS MOST LIKELY? - Duration: 9:13. 
For more infomation >> Global economy is steadily growing: Kewsong Lee - Duration: 4:07. 
For more infomation >> Ask Caribe: What is your favorite city in Arizona? - Duration: 0:55. 
For more infomation >> Is Arizona the next battleground state? - Duration: 2:40. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét