Civil asset forfeitures make no knock warrants look reasonable.

BamaJeepster, I do not think the link you posted is the one you meant to post.

I did find it useful, however.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
That any agency can still steal someone’s money without being able to link it DIRECTLY to a crime is an absurdity.

I am so glad to live in a place where "Due Process" is enshrined in our Constitution, and defended vigilantly by our elected and appointed officials."

Oh, wait.....

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
BamaJeepster, I do not think the link you posted is the one you meant to post.

I did find it useful, however.

Oops

Here's an Excel-lent link - the one I meant to post:
https://www.fox13memphis.com/t...egislators/495948192

Still_Bill is right, Sessions is a big fan of asset forfeiture.
And as virtually always, Justice Thomas is in the right. I do hope Kavanaugh can be confirmed quickly. Then I hope we get another seat available in this term.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
If you believe in the constitution ...

If you believe in the Constitution, you aren't a Democrat. And if you live in California and believe in the Constitition, you are an endangered species.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Yes. It was then a main cause of the Civil War, and finally took a Constitutional Amendment or two, to finally overrule.

Exactly, which means that the courts are NOT always Constitutional. How about Obamacare? Same damn thing. The Supreme court has said that the feds can FORCE you and I to buy anything they say.

My point: Big Gov rules are there to shield/protect/promote the weak. The strong and knowledgeable know the rules of God. IMO, God is superior to all. Even the Declaration of Independence says this. The resulting Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and edited by his fellow delegates, contains a theory of rights that depends on a Supreme Being, not man, for its validity. The Declaration states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I think I understand the appeal of asset forfeiture. It is outrageous that “crime pays.”

If you rob a bank, the money you take does not become yours. You have possession of it, but when you are caught and the cash taken into custody, it still belongs to the bank. In no case is it given to government, especially to the agency that recovered it.

Moreover, the robber does not surrender all money he has, over and above the cash taken by robbery. The police may be interested in investigating where your money came from, and that may raise other issues, but the burden is on the police to figure it out.

In these asset forfeiture cases, the assets appear to belong to the victim. Without more, what justification is there for immediate seizure without any process at all, no court order, etc., merely the decision of the police to take it?

In some cases, there is substantial reason to believe the cash or other asset is an instrumentality of crime. Property of known drug dealer is an example. Investigation reveals his or her involvement, assets are acquired by this suspect, no other source of income is apparent. Agents as part of the arrest can physically seize and record seizure notices as to real estate assets for example, or take possession of cars, boats, airplanes.

In many cases, most of the ones we hear about, the only circumstance is a person in possession of a significant amount of currency, more than normal, let’s say, no known or suspected involvement with drug or other crime. Many times, the explanation of innocence is entirely plausible, but no authorities go to the trouble to check it out.

This is rotten. The incentives are all wrong.

A man in the city near me had a break in. I believe he shot and wounded the intruder. Not sure if held him for police or he got away.

But city police come and think it is a drug deal gone wrong and accuse home owner.

He says, no the intruder must have found out that home owner does not trust banks and wants to rob $300K in his safe.
Police lay all of homeowners guns out on front lawn, call new paper to shoot pics of his "arsenal" about 10 guns.
They then take the mans $300K and keep it.

Man raises hell on national media. FBI steps in and takes $300K from city police and keeps it.

Eventually maybe 8-10 yrs, man gets money back.
Just a hard working, money saving, tax payer.
In case you want to look it up, happened in Lima , Ohio if that helps.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
If you believe in the constitution ...

If you believe in the Constitution, you aren't a Democrat. And if you live in California and believe in the Constitition, you are an endangered THE HUNTED species.

Fixed

I think if they want to continue the farce of CAF, then if proven wrong, not only does the victim get ALL his possessions back, but he also gets the possessions of those that took his in the first place...house, cars, bank account, retirement funds...the works...

still want to do CAF and risk losing everything you've worked for your entire life?

or do you want to engage in real police work and earn your paycheck

CAF is bullshit - always has been and always will be

its one of the reasons I believe in don't get mad, get even

From a quick search, the main one appears to be Austin v. United States. There are others pertaining to particular aspects of the policy.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Civil forfeiture cases have gone to the SCOTUS before, and the practice in general has been deemed to not violate the Constitution.

You wouldn’t happen to have a case cite handy, would you? I need to rereview this.

I tend to agree with you. I can see seizing and holding assets as part of an arrest / criminal case until the criminal case resolves.

But here's the kicker, why it's call "civil" forfeiture, and why your analogy illegal detention doesn't play. It's done as a civil case under civil law, not as a criminal case under criminal law. The rules are completely different. Criminal law is somewhat tilted to the defendant in that the government must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the parties are considered equal, and the decision goes in favor of who can present the bigger "preponderance of evidence". So it's just not considered a criminal issue. Think more in terms of one a victim sues someone in civil court about what would also be considered a criminal matter (something like the bajillion women suing Harvey Weinstein for various sexual harrasment issues.)

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Civil forfeiture cases have gone to the SCOTUS before, and the practice in general has been deemed to not violate the Constitution.

Just to be clear - I am aware that the issue has been litigated in court and found to be OK. I completely disagree with the ruling since I am able to read and comprehend things on my own. The courts have gotten it wrong and there is no support for such a practice in the constitution. The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty, the foundations of due process, and the concept of private property are in direct opposition to any such practice. Let the .gov seize their property when they have committed no crime and see how long the practice remains in effect. It's a shocking violation of the very founding principles of this country.

I don't see any difference in this versus illegally detaining someone if they are not charged with a crime. You think a guy is a drug dealer and the cash he is carrying is illegal proceeds from the illegal activity? Feel free to seize it and charge him with the crime and if he's found guilty, keep it. Don't have a case against him and are not going to charge him with a crime? Too bad, the guy gets to keep his cash until you can prove it's been obtained illegally. If that means some nefarious cash slips thru the cracks, that's just too bad.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
From a quick search, the main one appears to be Austin v. United States. There are others pertaining to particular aspects of the policy.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Civil forfeiture cases have gone to the SCOTUS before, and the practice in general has been deemed to not violate the Constitution.

You wouldn’t happen to have a case cite handy, would you? I need to rereview this.

Thanks. That rests on 8th Amendment excess punishments, etc.

What happens if there is no crime ever charged?

Very troubling.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I tend to agree with you. I can see seizing and holding assets as part of an arrest / criminal case until the criminal case resolves.

But here's the kicker, why it's call "civil" forfeiture, and why your analogy illegal detention doesn't play. It's done as a civil case under civil law, not as a criminal case under criminal law. The rules are completely different. Criminal law is somewhat tilted to the defendant in that the government must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the parties are considered equal, and the decision goes in favor of who can present the bigger "preponderance of evidence". So it's just not considered a criminal issue. Think more in terms of one a victim sues someone in civil court about what would also be considered a criminal matter (something like the bajillion women suing Harvey Weinstein for various sexual harrasment issues.)

Several issues with this. I hadn't really thought of the 'civil' angle in civil asset forfeiture. But, the problem I have with that is that following this concept the government assumes ownership of everything in the country unless you can prove otherwise. If anyone else takes my property from me, it's a criminal offense - theft. The same should apply to the government seizing property that is in my possession.

I don't understand the concept under which the government can take something that is in the possession of a free citizen. I can't go to my neighbors house and take his car and force him to go to court to prove that it belongs to him.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I don't understand the concept under which the government can take something that is in the possession of a free citizen. I can't go to my neighbors house and take his car and force him to go to court to prove that it belongs to him.

Some animals are more equal than others.

The problem is that CAF appeals to politicians/judges on both the right and the left.

Those on the right support CAF because they are tough on crime.

Those on the left hate private property and love to steal it.

Armed robbers deserve a bullet or a noose, but I might be placated with racketeering charges against the judges who promote this bullshit.

They need the money for their office parties.

https://www.texasattorneygener...ovdelivery&utm_term=