>That's the problem. I guess you didn't read the links I posted because it is not a case of property being seized after a trial.
>
>But those links describe completely different situations. Confiscating a vehicle as a punitive response to kerb-crawling or because it was associated with drugs is completely different from the protective measure we were talking about here. Any chance you can suggest a better protective measure that cannot be argued to violate the risk originator's rights in some fashion?
>
>We reached this point because red light running was used as a metaphor for government taking partial or full ownership of banks that could not survive a liquidity crisis, which is all US banks. Recently I reviewed capital ratios of large national banks and was shocked to see tiny capital ratios of around 2% which technically required a FDIC takeover. At least one of those banks continues to insist that it did not need the money, meaning that those people can be expected to resume running the financial red light at the first opportunity. I see no problem at all in government taking shares in exchange for the billions of dollars invested or if government removes the ability of selfish or incompetent people to put us all in danger again. Rip me once, shame on you. Rip me twice, shame on me.

Most often, determination is based on red-light cameras. There is a problem with those as well:

• Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude.

• Traffic fatalities caused by red-light running are not increasing in Florida and account for less than 4 percent of the state’s yearly traffic deaths. In contrast, more than 22 percent of the state’s traffic fatalities occur at intersections for reasons other than red-light running.

• Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.

• Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say.

http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404


Two procedures exists for forfeiture actions- criminal forfeiture or civil forfeiture. Civil forfeitures are becoming the increasingly common way for the state or federal government to attempt to take property because the rules for civil forfeiture actions are much easier procedurally for the state or federal government procedurally and it does not require a criminal conviction to succeed. In other words, even if you are ultimately exonerated of the criminal offense, the civil forfeiture may still succeed.

In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the state or federal government bring suit against the property, instead of suing the owner of the property. The owner of the property becomes a third party who asserts a claim to the property. In order to succeed, the state or federal government must first make a sufficient probable cause showing for the forfeiture of the property. If that showing can be made, the owner of the property must prove by a greater weight of the evidence that probable cause does not exist to forfeit the property. A civil forfeiture proceeding does not depend on the outcome of the criminal case. On the other hand, in a criminal forfeiture action is dependent on a conviction because the criminal forfeiture proceeding is intended as punishment for the individual accused of a criminal act.

Crime Does Pay- Federal and State of Florida Forfeiture

On December 22, 2008, the United States Attorney's Office in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division announced that it seized nearly $19 million dollars in cash, vehicles, and other assets during 2008. The United State's Attorney's Office intend to distribute from the forfeiture fund over $8 million to various law enforcement agencies throughout the Middle District of Florida. The Pasco County Sheriff's Office will receive $160,000.


http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/PracticeAreas/AssetSeizureAssetForfeiture.aspx