Uncivil Forfeiture

[AthenaAwakened]

Did you know police can just take your stuff if they suspect it's involved in a crime? They can!
It’s a shady process called “civil asset forfeiture,” and it would make for a weird episode of Law and Order.
See?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Those who choose to fight this have created some very interesting cases.

"State of XX versus $5000 cash". Yes, for real. The crime of Civil Asset Forfeiture is that it is an end-run around the takings clause by accusing the property instead of the person, and since property doesn't have rights the property can be presumed guilty until proven innocent. And for reasons I cannot fathom, the courts allowed the police to get away with this very corrupt practice. The corrupt reasoning is "if we wanted to take it away from you we'd have to prove you committed a crime, but we're not taking your property away from you we are arresting your property for the crime it committed."

This practice has heavily boosted the incomes of many police departments, and in a particularly corrupt manner has done so for cash carried by travelers along busy travel corridors.

If I were ever subject to such a victimization, I would highlight the absurdity of the case by calling the defendant to the stand to testify.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

TIf I were ever subject to such a victimization, I would highlight the absurdity of the case by calling the defendant to the stand to testify.

Unfortunately, the defendant does not have the right to a trial. Otherwise you might have a redress, because few juries would allow the government to see property without due process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's another factor also: You have to mount a defense if you want your assets back--and they can use what you say in the associated criminal trial.


Asset forfeiture should only occur upon conviction on a criminal charge related to the assets being seized!

 

[dismal]

TIf I were ever subject to such a victimization, I would highlight the absurdity of the case by calling the defendant to the stand to testify.

Unfortunately, the defendant does not have the right to a trial. Otherwise you might have a redress, because few juries would allow the government to see property without due process.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Unfortunately, the defendant does not have the right to a trial. Otherwise you might have a redress, because few juries would allow the government to see property without due process.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You'd think, but SCOTUS has ruled in Bennis v. Michigan and various others that civil forfeiture is A-OK and does not violate the 5th or 14th Amendments.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know

 

[dismal]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You'd think, but SCOTUS has ruled in Bennis v. Michigan and various others that civil forfeiture is A-OK and does not violate the 5th or 14th Amendments.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know

A link to the Heritage Foundation? You expect to be taken seriously?

 

[ksen]

Heh, I was going to ask squirrel if he had to take a shower after that.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You'd think, but SCOTUS has ruled in Bennis v. Michigan and various others that civil forfeiture is A-OK and does not violate the 5th or 14th Amendments.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know

A link to the Heritage Foundation? You expect to be taken seriously?

I can also link to the ACLU.

- - - Updated - - -

Heh, I was going to ask squirrel if he had to take a shower after that.

Only with you honey!

 

[dismal]

Heh, I was going to ask squirrel if he had to take a shower after that.

But you didn't. You're slipping.

 

[ksen]

I was trying to be nice.

 

[Axulus]

Unfortunately, the defendant does not have the right to a trial. Otherwise you might have a redress, because few juries would allow the government to see property without due process.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

They seem to be going with the idea that the property isn't rightfully yours, so you aren't being deprived of it (and you must prove the property is rightfully yours to get it back).

 

[Underseer]

You'd think, but SCOTUS has ruled in Bennis v. Michigan and various others that civil forfeiture is A-OK and does not violate the 5th or 14th Amendments.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know

A link to the Heritage Foundation? You expect to be taken seriously?

Rightists generally only believe things through appeal to authority fallacies, so they are more likely to believe a source with a conservative bias than a source that is unbiased.

 

[dismal]

I was trying to be nice.

The link police can't afford to get soft now.

- - - Updated - - -

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

They seem to be going with the idea that the property isn't rightfully yours, so you aren't being deprived of it (and you must prove the property is rightfully yours to get it back).

It's in my car. How would they prove it's theirs?

 

[arkirk]

The link police can't afford to get soft now.

- - - Updated - - -

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

They seem to be going with the idea that the property isn't rightfully yours, so you aren't being deprived of it (and you must prove the property is rightfully yours to get it back).

It's in my car. How would they prove it's theirs?

This happens quite a bit in North Hollywood with illegals' vehicles. The cops put up roadblocks and check everybody out real close...if you are brown or black. If anything is slightly out of order...then here come da tow truck! I better check out the local station here...for a Margarita machine. This is a real problem.. especially for minorities.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Minorities ... actually, anyone who looks like they won't be able to muster the resources to fight back. Unfortunately that does happen to be minorities in this area.

They say a conservative is a liberal who got robbed, and that a liberal is a conservative who got arrested. I guess that means libertarian got robbed by a cop. I'm surprised this issue isn't pushing more people in our direction.

And, of course, like the herpes on the body politic, showing up wherever there is a really nasty problem, this policy of civil asset forfeiture is a result of the drug war.

 

[ksen]

They say a conservative is a liberal who got robbed, and that a liberal is a conservative who got arrested. I guess that means libertarian got robbed by a cop. I'm surprised this issue isn't pushing more people in our direction.

Maybe if libertarianism wasn't batshit crazy it would benefit more from out of control cop stories.

 

[bilby]

The link police can't afford to get soft now.

- - - Updated - - -

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

They seem to be going with the idea that the property isn't rightfully yours, so you aren't being deprived of it (and you must prove the property is rightfully yours to get it back).

It's in my car. How would they prove it's theirs?

According to the precedent cited by SCOTUS, the ownership is irrelevant; The object itself is deemed guilty, by dint of the use to which it was put being illegal.

The precedent here is the seizure of the brig Palmyra, by the US Navy in 1827; Story J. deemed that the vessel, being guilty of piracy, was forfeit regardless of whether her owner was convicted of any crime.

This strikes me as a grave error; Mr Justice Story has conflated the ship with her crew, and considered this combined entity as the guilty party; where a reasonable view would hold that the vessel is not herself a rational actor, but is rather the tool by which her crew, and specifically her captain, committed the crime of piracy. His conclusion that the ship should be forfeit is correct, but his reasoning is flawed; the ship is not guilty, but is rather a tool used by the guilty parties, and should be forfeit on the grounds that her primary purpose as enacted by her captain was piracy, and that her owner was aware and complaisant in her use for this purpose.

The law is an ass; and this is a prime example of that. The best remedy would be for either legislation, or a constitutional amendment, stating clearly that guilt is no longer a state that can be ascribed to inanimate objects. Alternatively the SCOTUS could rule that the illegal act in a given case was an insufficient fraction of the intended use of the object being seized; The example given of a cruise ship not being forfeit due to the presence of a small amount of contraband in the possession of one passenger is interesting, as the court makes it clear that such a case would need to be tried, and that therefore the case of The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) is not a binding precedent in all cases, but that consideration must be given to the extent to which illegality is the primary purpose of the object being seized. This SCOTUS ruling in Bennis v. Michigan would appear to have significantly lessened the range of circumstances within which that argument could be made, however.

I am not holding my breath for this idiotic loophole in the law to be closed any time soon.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's in my car. How would they prove it's theirs?

They don't have to. that's the sick part.

 

[Blahface]

The law is an ass; and this is a prime example of that. The best remedy would be for either legislation, or a constitutional amendment, stating clearly that guilt is no longer a state that can be ascribed to inanimate objects. Alternatively the SCOTUS could rule that the illegal act in a given case was an insufficient fraction of the intended use of the object being seized; The example given of a cruise ship not being forfeit due to the presence of a small amount of contraband in the possession of one passenger is interesting, as the court makes it clear that such a case would need to be tried, and that therefore the case of The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) is not a binding precedent in all cases, but that consideration must be given to the extent to which illegality is the primary purpose of the object being seized. This SCOTUS ruling in Bennis v. Michigan would appear to have significantly lessened the range of circumstances within which that argument could be made, however.

It doesn't matter what amendment you pass, the court will come up with any creative interpretation it wants to justify how it wants to rule.