I realize that. Again, I wasn't speaking to the basics of repos, I was speaking to the argument that because you don't own something outright, you have no claim to protect it.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Screwed?
- Thread starter CRSIII
- Start date
I realize that. Again, I wasn't speaking to the basics of repos, I was speaking to the argument that because you don't own something outright, you have no claim to protect it.
Bill Nance
Banned
You don't have the right to prevent a repossession. It's part of the contract you signed.
That is 100% correct, and I've never stated otherwise.
You are the one who introduced the word "house" into the discussion. My response to jcetto0351 directly dealt with whether or not a car being reposessed at 3:00 a.m. was, in fact, "his" property. If he did not hold title to the car, it was not his, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcetto0351
He has the complete right to go out to his property which is being taken and say lemme see some paperwork! its 3AM so if it isnt a repo then you will definately need the gun but AT THE SAME TIME his girlfriend was calling the police!
I'm sure it pissed off the repoman to be scared for a second but I just don't see the big deal!
Point taken... but technically, unless he has the title, it is not his property which is being taken.
Sure I did. It's another example of property you don't own, which was the basis for your argument. Using a house, shed, car, or shrubs bought on credit doesn't change the nature of your position, it just shows it to be wrong.
What are you going on about? Please, go back and read. My original statement to jcetto0351 that someone who doesn't hold title to something they've bought on credit is correct. If someone hasn't paid a loan off, they are not a property owner. My original statement corrected his assertion that the individual was concerned about "his property" when the car was not "his property". This is about a caaaarrrrrr. Not a house.
Regardless, the individual handled it badly.
It doesn't matter what the property is, the concept remains the same in re it being property. Either you don't fully understand the position you're presenting, or it isn't a position at all, just an off hand comment with no material addition to the discussion.
Your comment left the implication that because he didn't own the property, he had no cause to defend it, therefore should have been so busy calling the police he wouldn't have "had time to grab a gun". If that's wrong, please clarify it for me.
Bingo! As I said, I was clarifying property vs. non-property.
It's wrong. You inferred a lot from that original off hand comment about what constitutes owned property. Anyhow...
![[horse]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/026.gif "Beat a dead horse [horse]")
Bingo! As I said, I was clarifying property vs. non-property.
It's wrong. You inferred a lot from that original off hand comment about what constitutes owned property. Anyhow...
Yeah. I apologize for assuming you were actually trying to add something to the discussion.
Not true (at least not in Mass.).
In Mass., you can only call their home phone a maximum of two times in a seven day period, and their work phone only two times in a 30 day period. However, before the repo order can go out, they have to send three 21 day notices that are sent with a return receipt. Any sane or reasonable person would know that their car was being repo'd, unless there was a mistake like in Martlet's case, but that's not what the OP looks like.
Aren't you for drug legalization? Why call the cops?
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
That's gonna leave a mark... ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
And where in the OP does it say anyone told someone to leave? Issuing someone a trespass notice changes things alltogether.
The statement that your driveway is not "private property" (legally) and that you have no expectation of privacy in your driveway is entirely accurate.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Correct... but until there is a trespass notice given the public has a right of access to your driveway as you have no expectation of privacy to your driveway as has been stated repeatedly....
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
There.... I hi-lighted the critical part for you.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
That's funny it seems that the Supreme Court of the United States shares my warped view.
How many legal cites have you given us to say otherwise?
See, U.S. v. Evans, 27 F.3d 1219 (7th Cir. 1994) (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents' approach to garage in which defendant conducted automobile repair business did not implicate Fourth Amendment interest, since, absent evidence that public had limited access to driveway leading to garage, defendant had no reasonable expectation that members of public or FBI agents would refrain from entering driveway);
United States v. Smith, 783 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1986) (officers did not violate defendant's right to privacy by entering his driveway and observing marijuana plant growing next to his house where there were no obstructions indicating any attempt to limit access to area around house and no effort had been made to screen off or enclose area where marijuana plants were growing);
United States v. Humphries, 636 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 988, 101 S. Ct. 2324, 68 L. Ed. 2d 846 (1981) (where automobile parked in driveway was visible from street and driveway was not enclosed, no reasonable expectation of privacy that would preclude officer from entering driveway to check on license plate number of parked car).
State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 (N.D. 1996) (police officers investigating fatal hit-and-run accident by entering defendant's driveway and observing his pickup truck in his garage did not violate defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy because any member of public would have entered upon defendant's property in manner officers did);
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 2),411 Mass. 157,580 N.E.2d 1014 (1991) (police officers' entry on defendant's private driveway to inspect exterior of automobile suspected to be involved in hit-and-run accident did not violate defendant's expectation of privacy because driveway and automobile were clearly visible from public way, driveway was normal route by which to approach front door of residence, no intrusion into automobile was required, and defendant had taken no other steps to conceal parked automobile from public view).
That's funny it seems that the Supreme Court of the United States shares my warped view.
How many legal cites have you given us to say otherwise?
See, U.S. v. Evans, 27 F.3d 1219 (7th Cir. 1994) (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents' approach to garage in which defendant conducted automobile repair business did not implicate Fourth Amendment interest, since, absent evidence that public had limited access to driveway leading to garage, defendant had no reasonable expectation that members of public or FBI agents would refrain from entering driveway);
United States v. Smith, 783 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1986) (officers did not violate defendant's right to privacy by entering his driveway and observing marijuana plant growing next to his house where there were no obstructions indicating any attempt to limit access to area around house and no effort had been made to screen off or enclose area where marijuana plants were growing);
United States v. Humphries, 636 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 988, 101 S. Ct. 2324, 68 L. Ed. 2d 846 (1981) (where automobile parked in driveway was visible from street and driveway was not enclosed, no reasonable expectation of privacy that would preclude officer from entering driveway to check on license plate number of parked car).
State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 (N.D. 1996) (police officers investigating fatal hit-and-run accident by entering defendant's driveway and observing his pickup truck in his garage did not violate defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy because any member of public would have entered upon defendant's property in manner officers did);
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 2),411 Mass. 157,580 N.E.2d 1014 (1991) (police officers' entry on defendant's private driveway to inspect exterior of automobile suspected to be involved in hit-and-run accident did not violate defendant's expectation of privacy because driveway and automobile were clearly visible from public way, driveway was normal route by which to approach front door of residence, no intrusion into automobile was required, and defendant had taken no other steps to conceal parked automobile from public view).
What's funny, or sad, is a LEO who doesn't understand the law, or court opinions. Not a single case you cited supports your view. The first isn't even dealing with a residence, but a business, which is ENTIRELY different.
I'll post your quote again:
You SPECIFICALLY state that your driveway isn't private property. One of the cases you cited even references "property". Additionally, most of them deal with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which again has nothing to do with private property OR right of access.
If you're so confident that my driveway isn't private property, set up a lawn chair there when I'm home. See what happens.
lowbuckbob
NES Member
I submit that "right of access" does NOT abrogate ownership rights. To the best of my recollection, I still have to shovel my driveway in the winter. If you look up property case law, the entity that maintains a piece of property is the legal custodian of said property. There is a DIMINISHED expectation of privacy due to "right of access" but definitely not a forfeiture of ownership.
Bill Nance
Banned
I'm all for drug legalization. I'm not for having open-air illegal drug trade in front of my house. Surely you can see there's a difference.
It's not the guy getting stoned that bothers me. He can smoke crack in front of my house for all I care. It's having the illegal trade in it with the attendant crime associated with its illegal nature.
The crime comes from it being illegal, not from people getting stoned. And ya, having an open-air market for a banned substance which by it's illegal nature encourages the worst sort of criminal to sell it on the street bothers me when it's in front of my house or anyone's house.
That's got nothing to do with the arguments for drug legalization. Legalize it and you eliminate the crime associated with it. Which is the only issue that concerns me at all.
Last edited:
Bill Nance
Banned
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
No one has stated that there is a forfeiture of ownership. It is privately owned but it is not private. The public has a right of access. That is all.
I am also curious in what you would do.
Give it a shot and find out.
Actually, they don't, the guy running the repo company does though. I don't know how it works in Mass but, in Florida you could pretty much tell a repo guy "No" and to get off your property and they had to comply. I tried for a short while years ago. Out all night burning up $60.00 worth of fuel to track down a car that might earn me $200.00, it didn't last long.
namedpipes
NES Member
I am also curious in what you would do.
Will you two just kiss and make up?!
