rance of Evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “more than a 50 percent chance,” etc.

The civil seizure laws allow States to take away your property without ever having to prove that you actually committed a crime pursuant to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution forbids the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation, and without due process of law.

The civil seizure laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the “Conservative” United States Supreme C

Florida is using a civil seizure law in an effort to combat speeding sport motorcycle riders. As stated in an article that I have read; law enforcement is using an old law to combat speeding sport motorcycle riders. The gist of the law is that once a Florida law enforcement officer turns their lights on to pull someone over, and if they allegedly speed up, their motorcycles can then be seized because they were used in the commission of a felony, i.e. “aggravated fleeing and eluding.”

The article states that the officers do not have to identify the person riding the motorcycle; all they have to do is get the license plate information. The law allows them to then seize the motorcycle rather than chase it.

As a Biker and Motorcycle Lawyer and Bikers Rights advocate this method of cracking down on speeders is disturbing to me on many different levels.

Before I go into my opinion on this law enforcement method, I want to state and reiterate that the vast majority of sport motorcycle riders do not run away from the Police, nor do they ride at 170 miles per hour down city streets. There are a few idiots that do speed on city streets and on canyon roads on sport motorcycles and in cars too. They should get busted for speeding. They should take their antics to a race track instead of putting the public in danger on public roads.

However, the law enforcement method that Florida is now employing is disturbing to me on many different levels. First off, I have never supported nor condoned civil seizure laws because they have always seemed unconstitutional to me. They do not pass the smell test!

A basic civil seizure law allows a State to seize property, money, or assets of someone if it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property, money, or assets we either used or obtained by the commission of a crime.

To prove that someone committed a crime, a state or the government has to prove “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” that the person so accused committed a crime. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system.

To win in a civil case, the burden of proof is “Preponderance of Evidence.” Preponderance of Evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “more than a 50 percent chance,” etc.

The civil seizure laws allow States to take away your property without ever having to prove that you actually committed a crime pursuant to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution forbids the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation, and without due process of law.

The civil seizure laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the “Conservative” United States Supreme Co

identify the person riding the motorcycle; all they have to do is get the license plate information. The law allows them to then seize the motorcycle rather than chase it.

As a Biker and Motorcycle Lawyer and Bikers Rights advocate this method of cracking down on speeders is disturbing to me on many different levels.

Before I go into my opinion on this law enforcement method, I want to state and reiterate that the vast majority of sport motorcycle riders do not run away from the Police, nor do they ride at 170 miles per hour down city streets. There are a few idiots that do speed on city streets and on canyon roads on sport motorcycles and in cars too. They should get busted for speeding. They should take their antics to a race track instead of putting the public in danger on public roads.

However, the law enforcement method that Florida is now employing is disturbing to me on many different levels. First off, I have never supported nor condoned civil seizure laws because they have always seemed unconstitutional to me. They do not pass the smell test!

A basic civil seizure law allows a State to seize property, money, or assets of someone if it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property, money, or assets we either used or obtained by the commission of a crime.

To prove that someone committed a crime, a state or the government has to prove “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” that the person so accused committed a crime. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system.

To win in a civil case, the burden of proof is “Preponderance of Evidence.” Preponderance of Evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “more than a 50 percent chance,” etc.

The civil seizure laws allow States to take away your property without ever having to prove that you actually committed a crime pursuant to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution forbids the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation, and without due process of law.

The civil seizure laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the “Conservative” United States Supreme C

wn city streets. There are a few idiots that do speed on city streets and on canyon roads on sport motorcycles and in cars too. They should get busted for speeding. They should take their antics to a race track instead of putting the public in danger on public roads.

However, the law enforcement method that Florida is now employing is disturbing to me on many different levels. First off, I have never supported nor condoned civil seizure laws because they have always seemed unconstitutional to me. They do not pass the smell test!

A basic civil seizure law allows a State to seize property, money, or assets of someone if it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property, money, or assets we either used or obtained by the commission of a crime.

To prove that someone committed a crime, a state or the government has to prove “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” that the person so accused committed a crime. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system.

To win in a civil case, the burden of proof is “Preponderance of Evidence.” Preponderance of Evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “more than a 50 percent chance,” etc.

The civil seizure laws allow States to take away your property without ever having to prove that you actually committed a crime pursuant to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution forbids the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation, and without due process of law.

The civil seizure laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the “Conservative” United States Supreme C

A basic civil seizure law allows a State to seize property, money, or assets of someone if it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property, money, or assets we either used or obtained by the commission of a crime.

To prove that someone committed a crime, a state or the government has to prove “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” that the person so accused committed a crime. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system.

To win in a civil case, the burden of proof is “Preponderance of Evidence.” Preponderance of Evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “more than a 50 percent chance,” etc.

The civil seizure laws allow States to take away your property without ever having to prove that you actually committed a crime pursuant to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution forbids the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation, and without due process of law.

The civil seizure laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the “Conservative” United States Supreme C

rance of Evidence is sometimes described as “more likely than not” or “more than a 50 percent chance,” etc.

The civil seizure laws allow States to take away your property without ever having to prove that you actually committed a crime pursuant to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution forbids the government from taking private property for a public purpose without compensation, and without due process of law.

The civil seizure laws that have been enacted and affirmed by the “Conservative” United States Supreme Court have upheld these laws as an exception to the Constitutional prohibition against the government taking private property for a public purpose without just compensation by carving out the criminal activity and criminal proceeds exception. The theory is that since the property was used or obtained from criminal activity that the property can be seized. There is no due process violation because the person whose property is being taken has notice of the taking and an opportunity to be heard. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s upholding of these laws because it goes against what our founding fathers intended when they drafted the constitution.

Another troubling issue with civil seizure of property under the criminal exception, is that people accused do not have the right to have an attorney appointed for them in a civil case; they only have this right in a criminal case.

So basically the State can seize your property without ever having proven that you committed a crime. What is worse that in many of these types of cases, criminal charges are never filed. These laws have resulted in huge windfalls for many local, state, and even the Federal government at the expense of a person who may have never even been charged with a crime.

Going back to the Florida situation, what is bothersome to me is that Florida law enforcement can seize your motorcycle without ever having to prove that it was you riding the motorcycle, or that you sped up when their lights were turned on. Furthermore, how do we know whether a Florida cop is not going to just say “the guy sped up when I put my lights on,” in order to start seizing motorcycles?

It’s basically your word against law enforcement and who do you think a Judge or Jury is going to believe?

It is my opinion that there is too much room for abuse of the system in Florida to justify taking someones motorcycle, without first proving beyond a reasonable doubt the person who owned the motorcycle was running from the police.

This new Florida tactic obviously panders to the general public who may already be biased against motorcyclist and bikers, but it goes beyond that. Do you honestly