When The Cops Are The Racketeers
Curt Prendergast writes for the Arizona Daily Star about the holdup job police are doing on people whose cars were seized -- despite the owners not having committed any crime.

The fortunes of a local woman took a disastrous turn when she loaned her car to her son so he could take her granddaughter to school.

Her son was arrested on suspicion of credit-card fraud in Oro Valley and police seized the woman's orange 2005 Mini Cooper, which she said in court documents she needed to drive to her $14-an-hour job at Red Lobster.

She hired a lawyer -- the court does not provide lawyers in civil matters -- to challenge the seizure and subsequent forfeiture proceedings. Authorities agreed on July 7 to return her car, but first she had to pay $2,000 into the Pima County Anti-Racketeering Fund, with $1,500 going to Oro Valley police and $500 to the County Attorney's Office.

In her case and four others recently settled in Pima County, prosecutors decided to return the vehicle, implying it was not subject to forfeiture. So why did the owner have to pay?

The agreements were reached through confidential negotiations, not by a judge's ruling in open court, so the public record does not provide a clear answer to that question.

What often ends up happening is that poor people can't afford a lawyer and end up forfeiting their property.

Most people can't walk to work -- so think about how that affects their life and possibly that of their children.

Check out the sick way Arizona sucks money from people who simply lent their child or friend their vehicle:

Arizona's "innocent third-party defense" protects people who could not reasonably be expected to know their vehicle would be used in a crime.

Cramer said there were no innocent third parties among the five recent settlements. In four of the cases, owners said they loaned their vehicles to their children or friends and had no knowledge of any crimes.

Attorney Rogers, who represented a man who loaned his 2002 BMW to a friend arrested for selling drugs, said the case was typical and ended with a compromise in which his client agreed to pay $1,500 to the multi-agency Counter Narcotics Alliance and $500 to the County Attorney's Office, as well as $190 in storage and towing fees.

Officers seized a 2013 Toyota Corolla in August 2015 at an illegal marijuana grow site in Tucson. The owner of the car said he let his son, who was arrested at the grow site, use the car, but that he had no knowledge of the grow site. His son's name was on the registration, but the father said his son did not pay for the car in any way.

Prosecutors agreed to return the car in February in exchange for $3,431 and $316 in storage and towing fees. The Counter Narcotics Alliance received $2,573 and the County Attorney's Office received $858.

And sure, maybe some of them or just a few of them knew something was up. Maybe, possibly. However, we are supposed to be a country that requires serious proof of guilt and not just, "Bend over, and then bend over some more" because the cops have the power and could use a whole bunch of cash in their coffers:

via @walterolson