When I came to the part describing how one escaped by swimming through freezing water, I was kinda hoping for something like, "the suspect was later found dead in a nearby park, having perished from hypothermia." What a letdown lol!
What about the charge of resisting arrest??? Did they forget about that!?
"Seized for forfeiture" in this state just means that law enforcement had legal grounds to take the vehicle because it was being used in the commission of a certain kind of crime. More often than not vehicles are returned because the registered owner wasn't present when the crime was being committed or a judge feels that the seizure would be too much punishment...which I kind of think will be the case here given how low the total fines are (in relationship to the offense).
Gross misdemeanor and low fines. 20 days in jail.... that we all pay for. The truck more than likely will be returned to owner if defense atty ask for it. All this for some recreational fish..... lots of money spent on both sides of the law.
I always chuckle when people get worked up because the punishment isn't harsh, believing that a harsher penalty is a signifigant deterrant. The signifigant deterrant is the belief that they may get caught, especially in a case such as this where it is a planned crime. I truly don't know what the recivitism rate is for fish and game crimes but I suspect it isn't as high as we think.
Having said that, I would have no problem with harsher penalties. I am just not of the opinion that harsher penalties would deter anything, short of a life sentence which does eliminate the possibility of recivitism. Higher chances of getting caught would definately be a deterrant.