This article suggests the supreme Court may rule on civil forfeiture.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...orfeiture.html
Printable View
This article suggests the supreme Court may rule on civil forfeiture.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...orfeiture.html
Civil forfeiture needs to be eliminated at all levels.
I don't know that I'd go that far ^^. On the other hand, forfeiture has become one of those useful tools that's been grossly misused in some instances.
As usual, it's really not the idea that's bad, it's how that idea is administered.
I would agree that it needs to be reigned in to a great degree and forfeiture should be allowed only in limited circumstances.
Agree. It should have very limited application. I foolishly believed when I first heard of it that it would be used against drug cartels and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
While it's true that abuse does not take away use, abuse as a foundational premise does not legitimize use, either.
In the past I've voted locally to increase funding for police departments. I don't think I'll ever do that again as long as civil forfeiture is an option. I suppose if local law enforcement were to ask for money in the future by running a campaign of transparency illustrating how they don't steal from the public that'd be different, but I won't be holding my breath. For the record, whenever I think about civil forfeiture, I never think of it in a local sense, usually assuming it's rampant elsewhere or with national agencies, but think globally, act locally and all that.
The basic question should be- does it violate the 4th?
What constitutes "reasonable" seizure? IMHO, it should be reserved for cases where the assets would pose an immediate threat to the public (such as a suitcase full of cash you have "reasonable" proof that would be used to fund terrorism)
It has clearly been abused- one way to stop that abuse would be to forbid the seizing department from retaining the assets... but I'm sure some bad apples would find ways around that, too.
The basic root of the issue is the 4th- stop trying to figure out what to do with assets that were illegally seized in the first place.
There should also be heavy penalties written into the laws around forfeiture so if determined to be an illegal seizure, then the department pays (and a LOT).
I couldn't agree more. No gray area. No exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
You want someone's shit?
Get proof that they're doing something wrong and get a conviction. It's called due process and we're all entitled to it as US citizens.
That's too hard? Tough shit. My freedom doesn't take a backseat to someone who doesn't have enough evidence.
Yeah but drugs are bad and people who do them deserve death and all their property stolen.
The mere idea that a citizen can't go around with a few thousand bucks in his pocket because the cops can legally just take it away "because it's suspicious" is just ludicrous. Defies EVERYTHING that's right, honest and just. A perfect example of a police state policy.
If forteiture happens in conjunction with a conviction then I’m all for it.. However civil asset forfeiture is used without even charges being pressed let alone a conviction. There are ways to sieze assets via the courts that don’t require the use of civil asset forfeiture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
If it isn’t banned by the supreme court at the very least the profits from forfeiture need to go to a dept other than the dept that makes the siezure.. for instance, all proceeds that come from civil asepset forfeiture must be applied to the state or local education budget on top of their regulat budget. This at least would reduce the motive for law enforcement departments to make random siezures when there is no crime committed or charges made.
Are you though? In the article the Supreme court made a point to ask if someone could have their property seized if they were going 5 mph over the speed limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
Just because someone does something wrong, does NOT entitle the state to their things.
NO!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
If allowed to stay, all motive must be removed from government. Send the assets to Powerball or MegaMillions. 100% shall be awarded to the jackpot winner, no 50/50 split with the collecting .gov. this should be the same for all fines, fees or other levies collected by enforcement of any law.
Government should enforce the law for public safety, not budget enrichment.
Criminal forfeiture, post conviction: Absolutely, with the proceeds used to aid the victims. No financial incentive for the arresting agency.
Civil forfeiture: No. By definition, civil forfeiture is directed at "guilty" property, which the owner then has to "prove" is innocent and/or not a threat to society to recover. Absolute bullshit, based on a flawed premise, not to mention a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
I walk around with a G on me regularly and often times more depending on the day. Just because everyone else is broke doesn't mean I get to be looked at like some sort of a criminal. If I'm doing nothing wrong then carrying cash is NOT a crime. Doesn't matter if I'm walking around with a movie briefcase w/$100,000 cash in it. I've done nothing wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
That's as bad as having my car taken away just in case I might use it to get a DUI someday.
This stripping everyone of their freedoms in the same of safety is horse shit.
I think whatever the ruling it will be disappointing. It is not in the nature of courts or govts to honor rights or due process.
I’m talking standard forfeiture where gains that were made in the process of committing a crime.. as in cash proceeds from the sale of illegal goods. There is no gain/profit being made while speeding 5 over thus no basis for forfeiture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/b...Ons5195wDtODTY
Not according to how it was interpreted to the courts. You mean that's what you are for?
I'd much rather give clicks to SCOTUS Blog than Slate: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/ar...to-the-states/ Less hyperbole too.
This. They might incorporate the 8th Amendment, but look how effective that was with MacDonald.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalobo
Article about how New Mexico banned civil forfeiture statewide, but the major cities just ignored the law and continued anyway.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib.../#b611d246a7d6
Yeah. New Mexico is almost as bad as Old Mexico when it comes to cops doing what they want. Whether it be shooting homeless mental cases, or excessive use of cavity searches. And crime is the kind you get in third world countries. I'm gonna stay away. Eminent domain, civil forfeiture, was this the plan?