Drunk driving is a serious problem, no doubt about it, but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach.

I am surprised no one's figured out the problem of analyzing traffic camera data to flag people who are driving erratically so enforcement can be both more comprehensive and targeted. I'd be wary of that solution, too, but it is far better than stopping everyone.

Especially when they aren't really looking for drunks, but people like your father to victimize as police fundraiser.

Anything that monetizes police action will lead to massive abuse. It blows my mind people won't accept that. The cops and the unions aren't stupid. They want that money for salary, pensions, and toys. The politicians want that funding without having to raise taxes.

So now the electorate is literally being bullied and mugged by the police. I'm really starting to like the lame-duck version of Obama. His recent moves are very much needed: encouraging municipal fiber, workers leave rights, sanctioning Russia, immigration amnesty, etc.

I think it's overly diplomatic to call this action a police fundraiser. These were highwaymen. Note they aren't doing this to their locals, they know better and that's why they're on the interstate, they're doing it on behalf of the locals. The rot is with the town itself.

Either the insane overreach isn't effective, or DUI is a miraculously solved problem here.

Of course, it might've hurt that this was at a sane hour on an unremarkable Wednesday night.

I will bet they had a lot more resources for doing searches than they did sobriety checks for those who refused the search. The search would therefore seem fast, while you probably had an insane line waiting for a sobriety test. This is a town with significant corruption and nepotism problems, and is operating like a cartel itself.

Can someone clarify for me- I read the article, and it SEEMS to be saying "the feds will no longer be participating in this process, which will of course still be carried out by state and city police". It's more about where seized money gets allocated, than about limiting the actual seizures.

Is that right?

Under State rules, in almost all states, the money goes into the general fund. And there is due process to actually seize the asset. We're essentially removing the incentive from the police officers to pull people over. It does them no good to take your stuff if it just goes into one big pot that they'll never see again.

That said, I'm not finding it with a little searching and skimming. I do see gaming revenues restricted to education...

That is, the laws that were 'suspected' broken were federal laws, and properly the seized goods belonged to the feds. The feds then shared a large portion of that back to the state and local cops. They will no longer do so.

This removes a great deal of the incentive for locals to use federal laws for seizures.

Many states require seizures go into the state general fund, so there's no incentive there for cops to overstep, at least not financial incentives.

So in theory this should result in a pretty big reduction in unwarranted seizures.

At some point in the past 10 or 15 years, Minnesota (I think) passed a law barring police in that state from doing so.

The police didn't stop... they just filed it under the federal civil forfeiture program, took their 80% cut and it continued.

So stopping the federal program will let states fix this, when until now it was futile to try.

"One audit examined about $3.4 million in Equitable Sharing funds that the Oklahoma Highway Patrol spent from July 2009 to June 2012.

The audit found $1.9 million in unallowable and unsupported expenditures relating to salaries, overtime pay, construction, fees paid to contractors and the use of two Ford F-150 pickup trucks by non-law enforcement personnel."

Police departments may lobby for "agency keeps the proceeds" state laws, but because states usually are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, they are reluctant to move general fund things out to dedicated funds, and if the feds are moving in part due to public outcry over the practice, the same pressure out to be able to be brought on states if they start to consider mirroring the discontinued federal practice.

All it will take to fix our police problem is sufficient public will. There isn't any other barrier.

"Reform Asset Forfeiture!" - http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc...

https://freestateproject.org

Once you go beyond the political mainstream, alignment between individuals drops drastically. If you can't get anything you want by compromise, you don't have to compromise on anything.

You may be surprised by the number of varying and mutually incompatible ideas that different libertarians will have regarding any particular issue, each one insisting that their idea would totally work, if only conditions X, Y, and Z could be met.

Prosecution: Xe stole my car and rent money and now I have no way to earn enough credits to buy my insulin and keep my apartment.

Defense: The offender was found travelling in an erratic and suspicious manner. As per the agreement made by travelling on Private Road Supranational's private road, the traveler is subject to searches of their person and vehicle if suspected of engaging in certain dangerous activities outlined in Section VI of the contract. In addition, any property suspected of use in a criminal or dangerous activity will automatically have its ownership transferred to Private Road Supranational, as detailed in Section V. Furthermore, we have no record of ever confiscating any of the offender's property.

Judge, brought to you by Lockheed Martin: This seems to be a pretty open and shut case.

(Many libertarians also see the government courts as last-gasp fallbacks and prefer private adjudication, but most that I've seen discuss the issue recognize the possibility of impasse in getting parties to agree on a private adjudicator, and see that some government involvement here may be essential.)

If you're really wealthy you have such good insurance that they negotiate sufficiently low compensation that you can in effect have anybody killed. And it's called feudalism. Or in early U.S. times, this was the American frontier, a.k.a. the wild west, and hired guns.

Libertarians think they have some new bright idea that's never been tried before to counter the fact we're ignorant violent primates. We want something enough, get pissed off enough, we become irrational. Having the irrational hire enforcers is old hat. And it leads to things like the gangs of New York, butchery in the streets, the warlords of Somalia.

These same libertarians are the first to propose both open and conceal carry (of guns) which are the #1 enemy of free speech and civil discourse. It says, "if you argue better than I do, I might just have to let my gun do the talking, so keep your mouth shut smarty pants." So I think libertarians are idiots and not to be trusted, especially if they're armed.

Because clearly the same cops you've been roundly criticizing as "highwaymen" elsewhere in the thread should have a monopoly on the possession of firearms.

I've got a better idea: you guys move to Somalia. I'm fine where I'm at.

it is great to send people to Somalia while sitting in US. Doing so in Somalia would have quite different result through "private enforcement" :)