You are viewing the archives of the old northcoastoregon.com. Please visit the new North Coast Oregon at: http://www.northcoastoregon.com/
Now only convicted criminals can have their property seized.
From the NewportNewsTimes:
By the slimmest of margins and with even the majority divided over the reasons, the Oregon Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision reached on Oct. 19, ruled that Measure 3 – approved by voters in November 2000 – is constitutional.
This Measure was not only approved, but approved by a very large margin. In fact Clatsop County had the closest numbers, passing it at a 9-6 margin , other counties were closer to a 2-1 margin.
Prior to the measure’s adoption, law enforcement agencies could use civil courts to request forfeiture of money and property police believed were obtained during criminal activity, especially drug dealing, or purchased with proceeds derived from criminal activity. Measure 3 requires law enforcement agencies to get a criminal conviction before they can pursue such forfeiture. It also tightens the rules on what property is subject to forfeiture, slashing the amounts law enforcement officials can claim, restricting the use of forfeiture proceeds, and effectively limiting a major source of funding for narcotics investigations.
Well, anytime something takes away funding resources for the “Drug War” it’s something positive for the public…(Unless you are a Authoritarian or a NRA member..)
More:
Civil liberties groups claim Measure 3 protects people from unjustified seizure of their property. Prior to Measure 3, they note, police could take property even if the owner was never convicted of a crime, and without proving their case according to the higher standards required in criminal trials.
So I guess the question is, will police still be able to seize people’s cars if they are accused of a DUII, now that this law held up in court?
Up next on the list is measure 40, which involves electing the 17 “Big Dog” judges by district instead of “at large”.
By “Big Dog” I mean the 7 Supreme Court Judges and the 10 Court of Appeals Judges.
This was very hard for me to decide since I’m not a Liberal or a Conservative. If I was one of these the choice would be very easy. I would vote no if I was a Liberal because the State as a whole leans slightly to the left. The way it currently is the majority usually chooses the “Big Dog” Judges who are more to the left of the spectrum. The opposite would true if I was a Conservative, I would want it changed because then roughly 45% of the Judges would be to the Right of center.
A good local example of how this would change things is our Port and County elections. Now Oregon Judges are elected like the Port of Astoria Commissioners, this law would change it to the way we elect County Commissioners. I have always said I liked the way the County Commissioners are elected, by district, because it creates more diverse views in a Governing body.
I am going with the same train of thought on this one although I do have one major issue with this Measure which I will get to later.
Another reason to support this is because none of the current judges are from the Coast and I doubt any will be for a while. With this measure at least we will have a chance to vote for someone from our neck of the woods. Although an arguement against this is that we would probably lose some of or better judges to the Appeals and Supreme Court. The best ones would move on to bigger and better things rather then stick around these parts.
But don’t take it from me, here is the actual text........
North Coast Oregon is a community information and discussion website for North Coast web users. This is the archive of our old site. Please visit our new site at:
http://www.northcoastoregon.com