Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,
-------------------
The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms. Their conduct invoked the 4th Amendment.
You need to verify whether the nature of an expired tag is CRIMINAL or CIVIL.
You also need to verify the NATURE of the police CONTACT. Which one was it?:
The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called "detention," involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]
The bottom line is the servant seized property without a warrant. Warrantless arrests and seizures are prima facie illegal. They are punishing you by depriving your of property BEFORE any deprivation hearing in a court of law where you had an opportunity to examine any witness or evidence. This is a substantive due process issue. Police are NOT judges. They can ACCUSE but they CAN NOT CONVICT, especially at curbside.
You could file a claim for damages against the cop in their PERSONAL CAPACITY for "acting beyond the scope" of their duty in absence of "authorization".
"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]
I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH:
Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635]
When, however, the question of the legality of an arrest or of a search and seizure is raised either at the preliminary hearing or at the trial, the defendant makes a prima facie case when he establishes that an arrest was made without a warrant or that private premises were entered or a search made without a search warrant, and the burden then rests on the prosecution to show proper justification. (Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469, 471- 472 [289 P.2d 428]; Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 319 [239 P.2d 876]; Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858 [228 P.2d 550]; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656 [290 P.2d 535]; People v. Gorg, supra, 45 Cal.2d 776, 782-783.)
Badillo v. Superior Court , 46 Cal.2d 269
[S. F. No. 19346. In Bank. Feb. 24, 1956.]
