Will the supreme Court rule on civil forfeiture?

[Bailey Guns]

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.

[sroz]

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.

[def90]

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.

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.

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.

[Irving]

If forteiture happens in conjunction with a conviction then I?m all for it..

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.

Just because someone does something wrong, does NOT entitle the state to their things.

[def90]

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.

Just because someone does something wrong, does NOT entitle the state to their things.

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.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/b...Ons5195wDtODTY

[Eric P]

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.

NO!!!

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.