Car accidents are already stressful enough, without the added burden of vehicle confiscation. You may have sustained injuries that need medical attention, your vehicle may need repairs or replacement due to severe damage, and you might have missed earnings due to needing to stay home and recover. There are countless disruptions that a split-second car accident can cause, both immediately and into the future as you seek to recover and recoup your losses. But what happens if there is a collision, and then your car gets confiscated? Amidst everything else going on, this can be a difficult circumstance to navigate on your own. In such a complicated situation, contacting a lawyer for help might be necessary. About Asset Forfeiture Law enforcement and government agents may seize an owner’s assets if they have a preponderance of evidence that the property was directly linked to criminal activity. Asset forfeiture occurs when the government confiscates someone's property because they believe it is involved in criminal misconduct. If your vehicle was confiscated, it could be because you are suspected of committing a crime related to the accident. The types of property that may be confiscated can include homes, vehicles, computer equipment, cell phones, electronic devices, boats, weapons, money, illegal drugs, machinery, and more. Rights to Your Property Despite it appearing that law enforcement can seize and forfeit assets at will, those affected by this do have their own rights. As an auto accident lawyer would suggest, do not succumb to intimidation or abuse inflicted by law enforcement or other parties. You have the right to be free from unlawful confiscation of your belongings. Federal law does allow seizures of property based on probable cause without a conviction, but state restrictions exist that require a higher burden of proof to perform a seizure. If you are facing a forfeiture hearing, consider seeking help from a reputable law firm immediately, such as Cohen & Cohen. Your lawyer can inform you about your rights to your property and can protect your best interests as you navigate this unfortunate situation. Fighting a Confiscation Dealing with vehicle confiscation after an accident can add more stress to an already challenging predicament. You may not have the knowledge or strength to fight a confiscation, even if you know the outcome could be in your favor. That's why many people turn to a lawyer for assistance; they might otherwise be unable to handle the situation effectively. When lawyers get involved, opposing parties often become more cooperative because they know someone with legal insight has entered the picture. Your lawyer can be your best resource and advocate as you fight an asset forfeiture. If you are struggling due to a vehicle accident and confiscation, it's important to protect your side of the story immediately. The legal procedures and rights related to car accidents and asset forfeiture may vary depending on the jurisdiction. You are encouraged to consult an attorney in your region.

If you were arrested and it did not result in a conviction, meaning that the case was dropped before you ever went to court, you completed a diversion program or even if you went to court and eventually won your case, you still have an arrest record. In California, having an arrest record shouldn’t affect your employment prospects, in theory.. California law generally prohibits asking a job applicants about an arrest that did not lead to a conviction or about participation in a diversion program. (Labor Code Section 432.7). In addition, The Fair Chance Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, has prohibitions on asking about a conviction history before making a job offer (“Ban the Box” law). Even so, many companies, including big gig-economy companies, just ignore the law and reject applicants for unlawful reasons. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing has received more than 300 complaints alleging violations of the law. Why are they flagrantly violating the law? One theory is that it is cheaper to ignore these labor laws than deal with the lawsuits and fall-out caused by some misdeed by an employee who had a previous arrest record. When you apply for a job and get a copy of your CalDoj criminal record back showing an arrest as the only reason for denial, just remember that not all is lost! Here are some things you can do: Get a certificate of “detention only” from the police station that arrested you (if you were never charged). A detention is one step below and arrest but still raises some eyebrows. SEAL YOUR RECORD! You can file a C.A.R.E. Act petition under a new law that went into effect in early 2018 that allows you to seal your record for most purposes. Nearly two years after the C.A.R.E. Act was passed, only a small fraction of eligible people have taken action to seal their record. Given that the process takes several months (time to get a court date, time for the court to send the updated record to the DOJ, etc.) people shouldn’t wait until they are between jobs to seal their records.

If the exclusionary rules applies to a case, it means the defendant or claimant can make a motion under PC 1538.5 to suppress evidence that was collected in a warrantless search that lacked probable cause. Almost every other state accepts that constitutional protections from illegal search and seizure, and the exclusionary rule, apply in civil asset forfeiture cases. In One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, police stopped and searched a vehicle without probable cause, and found contraband untaxed alcohol in the rear and the trunk. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 696 (1965). The United States Supreme Court unequivocally held that the exclusionary rule applied to civil forfeitures. The California Supreme Court, one year before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, held that the exclusionary rule applied in forfeiture matters and rejected an argument that because forfeiture action is “civil in nature” the exclusionary rule should not apply. “Whatever the label which may be attached to the proceeding, it is apparent that the purpose of the forfeiture is deterrent in nature and that there is a close identity to the aims and objectives of criminal law enforcement.” People v. Reulman, 396 P.2d 706, 708 (1964). People v. Thomas, 566 P.2d 228 (Cal. 1977)(“The exclusionary rule is also applicable to forfeiture proceedings, which, although technically classified as civil proceedings, must be considered criminal proceedings for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”). Then, mysteriously, in 1998, without reference or citation to People v. Ruelman, the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal held that the exclusionary rule did not apply in civil asset forfeiture cases. People v. $241,600 US Currency, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 588, 594-95. The court based its holding on the fact that “the forfeiture action is an in rem civil proceeding which is not based on a provision requiring the claimant to be found guilty of a criminal offense nor imposing imprisonment as a penalty for a criminal act.” Id. The court also cited the fact that the state need only “prov[e] by a preponderance of the evidence that the innocent third party ‘know or should have known of facts which made the property subject to forfeiture.” Id. The court concluded that “[s]uch provision is not penal in nature.” Id. 48 other states appear to disagree.. except Texas. See Texas case State v. One 2004 Lincoln Navigator, 494 S.W.3d 690 (2016). California and Texas are as far apart as can be on most issues, but when it comes to forfeiture of property without adequate probably cause they find themselves in happy alignment.

Effective January 1, 2023, Jaywalking has been decriminalized. No longer can individuals be detained, searched and cited for Jaywalking (crossing the street outside a designated cross walk) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there was an immediate danger. According to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, "this crucial legislation will protect vulnerable pedestrians against arbitrary, racially-biased, pretextual policing, as well as burdensome fees and fines, and unnecessary, and potentially lethal, interactions with law enforcement AB 2147/The Freedom To Walk Act promotes the fair and equitable use of streets by: Legalizing crossings outside of a crosswalk or against a traffic light when safe, thereby eliminating fines for safe crossings Preventing police from using jaywalking as a pretext to stop Black and Brown people" The full legislation can be found at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2147 That said, please use common sense and look both ways before crossing any street whether you are exercising your new freedom under AB 2147 or just using a crosswalk.