In Oklahoma City, a car was seized in a civil asset forfeiture action, but no drugs were found and the person in the car wasn’t the owner. The owner was never notified his car had been seized and he wants his car back.
http://acluok.org/2015/09/civil-asset-forfeiture-car-taken-owner-never-notified/
M. Scott Carter should know better. I guess he has less of a burden writing press releases for the ACLU than a legitimate news source. A quick look at court documents clearly reveals Don Hoover (who the late great Mark Shannon used to say you could tell he was lying when you heard his voice on a commercial) was notified — had an attorney and even signed when he was served notice. http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&cmid=3114513&number=CV-2014-646
Mr. Marshal, I read the complaint by Prater.
Without your personal snarky comments,, was it ever proven in court that the defendant (the BMW) was actually used for any drug activities?
If not, then your remarks are moot, and this verifies the argument against these illegal and unconstitutional activities.
“… and the person in the car wasn’t the owner.”
The article said nothing about anyone being “in the car.” Nevertheless, the person apparently in possession of the car (Ross), was the person whom the owner intended to be in possession of the car. This was not a case of a stolen car being used in the commission of a crime.
Mr Woods, if you read the police reports, you can see, Ross Hoover admitted the vehicle was being used for drug distribution.
Words mean things. When a “reporter” reports a vehicle was confiscated without notifying the owner, yet court records show the owner acknowledged being notified, then you have to question the integrity of the reporter. (I guess you could question the ability of the reporter, but Mr. Carter has superior ability). The reality is, Mr. Carter is no longer a reporter, he is now issuing press releases for the ACLU and masquerading as a reporter.