I picked yes but with certain restrictions. A guilty verdict of the accused either in a criminal trial or a civil trial with with the same standards as a criminal trial should have to happen and after that the government should have to prove in a court with the same standards of a criminal trial that all of the property in questions was acquired through illegal means.
Law enforcement are not courts and should never be able to seize assets without first obtaining a court order - and then it is the government, not police, who have the assets. Allowing police to just take people's money and property summarily and then only if the person can afford to spend and lose all the attorney fees, court costs, other expenses plus wait a year or two not only seems to have turned polcie into criminals with badges, but fly directly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.
It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.
The way the law now is written, the government has a license to steal. We need a complete rewrite of the laws from scratch.
Yep.When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.
It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.
This, both of you hit on it. I have no problems with assets attained by provably breaking the law being subject to forfeit, and I have no problem with civil forfeiture in a merited case but both of these circumstances should always be done by due process. It stinks to high heaven that a person's property ends up on the market before they've actually received a guilty verdict and that needs to end yesterday. As well the war on drugs is an exercise in futility, I'm waiting for someone to either grow a spine or a brain and suggest smart drug policy, end marijuana prohibition(I don't imbibe) and deal with the "victimless" drugs of the harder variety by setting up a clinical use system that would be monitored by health professionals thus ending the black market.since I think the war on drugs has to end, I guess my perspective is different. However, I have seen dozens of forfeiture cases where the government could not prove "guilt" of the claimant but the forfeiture was justified. But the bounty it provides to government agencies has caused massive abuse
since I think the war on drugs has to end, I guess my perspective is different. However, I have seen dozens of forfeiture cases where the government could not prove "guilt" of the claimant but the forfeiture was justified. But the bounty it provides to government agencies has caused massive abuse
It boggles my brain cells that the Supreme Court... in a 9-0 decision... hasn't said, "What the eff were you people thinking when you wrote these laws?!?"When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.
It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.
It boggles my brain cells that the Supreme Court... in a 9-0 decision... hasn't said, "What the eff were you people thinking when you wrote these laws?!?"
I picked yes but with certain restrictions. A guilty verdict of the accused either in a criminal trial or a civil trial with with the same standards as a criminal trial should have to happen and after that the government should have to prove in a court with the same standards of a criminal trial that all of the property in questions was acquired through illegal means.
There is only one way I can interpret this... due process is an inconvenience and an annoyance that must be eliminated.I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.
There is only one way I can interpret this... due process is an inconvenience and an annoyance that must be eliminated.
Ok, two ways: I don't mean any offense, but honestly, it is incredibly naive to think that humans are capable of restricting themselves to skirting due process only when they *know* a crime has been committed, yet allow for due process in all other cases... and never ever abuse the 'freedom' they would have.
In your scenario the court order is only done after-the-fact. After the seizure has taken place. Any reasonably articulate person can fill in the blanks after a seizure has been done to legitimize it.How is a court order not due process?
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.
In your scenario the court order is only done after-the-fact. After the seizure has taken place. Any reasonably articulate person can fill in the blanks after a seizure has been done to legitimize it.
I should ask: When you say seize the vehicle, do you also mean keep the vehicle?
Then I stand by original interpretation as being correct... you find due process a hindrance and unnecessary.Yes, I would support keeping the vehicle in that kind of situation. I know it's abused. And those abuses should be stopped immediately. But if your car is carrying 500# of MJ (my example), I have no problem at all with it being seized as evidence and then kept by virtue of a court order outlining facts that are as plain as the nose on one's face.
I'm guessing this situation rarely happens, though -- that property is seized without charges being pressed. As to having to find them guilty first, we all know that a finding of not-guilty often has little to do with innocence.
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?