# My brother was arrested for solicitation **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 16, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995 "2003-09-16T20:08:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tom\_Eaton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tom\_Eaton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Eaton)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/21 "2003-09-17T05:36:19Z")
If he does lose the car and stops making payments, what will happen is that he’ll get sued for the remaining balance on his loan. It’s a breach of contract. The people who sold him the car are not concerned with what happened to the car after they sold it to him (although it will make it harder for them to get their money back since now they can’t repossess it); they just want the loan paid off. In the lawsuit for the breach of contract, it is not a defense that he doesn’t have the car anymore. That is his problem. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/22 "2003-09-17T05:59:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*The civil forfeiture is a sort of legal fiction, in which the property is a party to the proceeding - leading to cases styled along the lines of “United States vs. One 1998 Green Toyota Avalon”. The theory is that the property itself is “guilty” of being used to commit crime and is thus subject to seizure. \*\* I simply cannot fathom how this can be accepted by any sane person. Do people really believe that the property is “guilty”? Is there any way you can explain this concept which does not make lawyers look like they’re on acid? ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/23 "2003-09-17T15:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bokap \* > **Back to my original question. If the charges are dropped would my brother get his car back?** Maybe. It is at the procecutor’s discretion whether or not s/he pursues civil forfeiture separately form the criminal charges. Without a criminal conviction, however, it becomes harder to pursue. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bokap \* > **If he does lose the car what would happen if he stopped making payments?** He will default on the loan. The creditor can make collection atttempts and yes, sue him for payment. This will negatively impact his creditworthiness. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bokap \* > \*\* It does not make sense to me that NYC could auction off the car and my brother would still be paying for it. > Thanks \*\* Refer to **Tom Eaton** ’s and my earlier posts. Loss of the vehicle, whether through legal action or otherwise, does not terminate his note with the lender and his obligations under it. Think of it this way: If you take out a loan to pay for a new car, and total that car on the way out of the dealership, what happens? You will get a settlement from your insurance carrier and have to use it to pay off _the entire principal amount of the note_. If the settlement is less than the note, you have to come up with the difference from your own pocket. Even though the car no longer exists. #include disclaimer ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/24 "2003-09-17T17:19:08Z")
The Ryan, what’s to explain? The govt. wants to punish people and it wants their money. They’re the ones with the power, I really don’t know why they even bother trying to justify their actions anymore. Welcome to post-constitutional America. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/25 "2003-09-17T18:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalashnikov \* > The Ryan, what’s to explain? The govt. wants to punish people and it wants their money. They’re the ones with the power, I really don’t know why they even bother trying to justify their actions anymore. > Welcome to post-constitutional America. This is GQ. As I explained above, civil forfeiture is not _per se_ unconstitutional, although excessive forfeitures may trigger Eigth Amendment protections. In what FACTUAL way is this “post-constitutional?” - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/26 "2003-09-17T21:53:44Z")
What if he stops paying for the car… the car is like X% his and not his as well. If he stops the payment and loses the car … the police would effectively be holding a third persons property if he loses possession of the car due to lack of payment ! All seems a bit harsh for soliciting… ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/27 "2003-09-17T22:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*This is GQ. > > As I explained above, civil forfeiture is not _per se_ unconstitutional, although excessive forfeitures may trigger Eigth Amendment protections. > > In what FACTUAL way is this “post-constitutional?”\*\* Although it isn’t written in the Constitution, I would think there’s an assumption that since only people are guaranteed rights WRT crimes and trials, only people can be charged with crimes… maybe a common law tradition or something. How old is the practice of charging inanimate objects with crimes, while prohibiting their owner from defending them? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/28 "2003-09-18T06:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*This is GQ. > > As I explained above, civil forfeiture is not _per se_ unconstitutional, although excessive forfeitures may trigger Eigth Amendment protections. > > In what FACTUAL way is this “post-constitutional?” > > - Rick \*\* You have read the Constitution, haven’t you? “nor be deprived of property without due process of law” “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just copensation” “In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” and if you try claiming this is a civil matter: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved” (presumably the car is worth more than $20)" “Excessive bail shall not be required” “nor excessive fines be imposed” “not cruel and unusual punishment be inflicted” “…nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law” So eight different violations of the constitution. Does he have insurance on the vehicle? I’d try making a claim of theft. After all, that’s what this is, just with a fancy name. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/29 "2003-09-18T06:56:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Although it isn’t written in the Constitution, I would think there’s an assumption that since only people are guaranteed rights WRT crimes and trials, only people can be charged with crimes** That’s up with there with “water is wet”. Inanimate objects cannot commit crimes. That’s just obvious; it needs no basis in law. I think that a vital assumption is that the Constitution assumes that people won’t play games with words; without it, it’s meaningless. “What, quartering him in your house is a violation of your rights? But that only applies to soldiers. He’s not a soldier; he’s a military agent. Oh, and we don’t need a search warrant to look in your house; this isn’t a search, it’s an informational survey.” ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/30 "2003-09-18T10:19:04Z")
Aren’t corporations defined as ‘people’ wrt the law, necessitating using the term ‘natural people’ or something when you mean a human? That’s getting close to ‘playing games with words’ imho. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/31 "2003-09-18T11:29:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*I’d try making a claim of theft. After all, that’s what this is, just with a fancy name. \*\* Right or wrong, that’s my favorite response to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/32 "2003-09-18T13:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > You have read the Constitution, haven’t you? I might have glanced at it once or twice, yes. Shockingly, you have again managed to misconstrue what the Constitution means. Let’s go down the list: > [@](#): > > “nor be deprived of property without due process of law” There is “due process of law”. There is a trial. That’s the process that’s due under the law. > [@](#): > > “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just copensation” This phrase doesn’t refer to administrative, civil, or criminal fines or forfeitures, as a moment’s thought would make clear. If it did, then no fine would ever be permitted, and illegal items seized as contraband would have to be paid for. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I do not think this phrase means what you think it means. > [@](#): > > “In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” This is a civil matter. > [@](#): > > and if you try claiming this is a civil matter: > “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved” (presumably the car is worth more than $20)" It’s not a suit at common law. The phrase “suit at common law” has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t mean “any civil trial.” > [@](#): > > “Excessive bail shall not be required” > “nor excessive fines be imposed” > “not cruel and unusual punishment be inflicted” All from the Eighth Amendment, which, as I said earlier, MAY be implicated if the forfeiture is deemed excessive. But just because YOU think it’s excessive doesn’t make it excessive. The courts have ruled that the forfeiture of a car is not _per se_ excessive. > [@](#): > > “…nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law” No people are being treated unequally under these laws - all are subject to forfeiture. > [@](#): > > So eight different violations of the constitution. Nope. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/33 "2003-09-18T22:22:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > There is “due process of law”. There is a trial. That’s the process that’s due under the law. There has not been a trial, and even if there is, the forfeiture is not dependent on it. > [@](#): > > This phrase doesn’t refer to administrative, civil, or criminal fines or forfeitures, as a moment’s thought would make clear. This neither supports nor is supported by any logical argument. I take you are trying to imply that it is one of these types, without being tied to claiming that it is one in particular. > [@](#): > > If it did, then no fine would ever be permitted, and illegal items seized as contraband would have to be paid for. So because it cannot be taken completely literally, it should be thrown out? By your logic, since the first amendment does not allow prisoners to carry knives, no prisoner has any rights under the first amendment. Fines are levied under the theory that taking the money and giving nothing in return is just. Contraband is seized under the theory that as it is illegal to possess it, it does not constitute private property. If you wish to discuss those theories, that is a matter for another thread. > [@](#): > > This is a civil matter. Let’s see. He is being **punished** for allegedly comitting a **crie** , yet it is not a criminal matter? This is the playing with words I was talking about before. Levying a fine as punishment for committing a crime is a criminal action. > [@](#): > > All from the Eighth Amendment, which, as I said earlier, MAY be implicated if the forfeiture is deemed excessive. But just because YOU think it’s excessive doesn’t make it excessive. The courts have ruled that the forfeiture of a car is not _per se_ excessive. So you can say with a straight face that confiscation of a car for a violation (as in, the class that a traffic ticket is in), could be considered nonexcessive? > [@](#): > > No people are being treated unequally under these laws - all are subject to forfeiture. But the amount forfeited differs in an arbitrary manner. A law requiring all farmers to cede their farms to the federal government would not be justified in noting that nonfarmers would also be required to cede their nonexistent farms. ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995/34 "2003-09-18T23:46:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bokap \* > \*\*My brother was arrested for solicitation of a prostitute in New York City. The prostitute was an undercover officer. \*\* And what about this undercover cop? Was she arrested for prostitution? She supposed to uphold the laws, not break them! :D:D [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-brother-was-arrested-for-solicitation/201995.md?page=1)