WE had a guy at work, build a new house after buying a 5 acre lot in the country. He built the house himself and put in all quality parts, lumber, fixtures and appliances.

He got caught growing MJ in back of his house. The house and property was confiscated. His wife divorced him, she never smoked the stuff.

When you start hearing buzzwords like "buisness model", then the argument's probably over.

While there may be some cases of abuse the vast majority of bad press on these cases comes directly from attorneys' press releases. They object to the seizures because the criminal's ill gotten gains are taken by law enforcement and nothing is left for them. I've personally seen attorneys vigorously argue against seizures and when they lose they drop the cases and let those clients they seem to care so much for go to prison.

That said, it will have no affect in North Carolina because all fines and forfeitures go to the school fund per the NC Constitution. And interestingly enough there is NO oversight of how the funds are spent at their level All forfeitures here have to be done in the federal courts and there is great scrutiny at the federal law enforcement agency level and at the US Attorney level. The only exception is for LE to be able to "use" vehicles; however, when sold the proceeds must go to the schools. At the state LE level all expenditures of forfeiture funds have to be approved by the NC Legislature, per law.

There has been a great deal of "fake news" spewed about forfeitures.

Simply the opinion of a 40 plus year law enforcement officer and not posted to start any argument or debate.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:... I see it as a loss to LE who used the tool in accordance with the law under strict guidelines. .....

But SCOTUS did not rule the your "tool" was unconstitutional. In the opinion they specifically stated they were not ruling on the excessiveness of the "taking".

They just followed what just about everyone already knew, Bill of Rights is applicable to the states through the 14th.

Your issue has yet to be decided, that is, can LEO's take the house/boat/car/kids/soccer balls...if you use them in the commission of a crime and does the value of the taking be within the statutory fine?

best news I've heard all week

about damned time

I am with those that feel that asset forfeiture has been a badly abused tool.

Greedy politicians and police departments deserve this ruling. Yes, some good can come out of asset forfeiture, but the bad actions engendered by these forfeitures outweighs the good.

Finally the court is actually looking at the law and not the politics.
Great decision.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
If the police had not severely and over a very long period of time abused this process, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You can put the blame squarely on those greedy agencies who used these laws for their personal shopping sprees.

Precisely the comment I made to my wife when I read the news story.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Para, I respect your opinion but the abuse by a few agencies does not justify denying a very valuable tool to LE when strict oversight is established.

Disagree. Most emphatically. And I'm about as pro-LE and pro-rule of law as anybody you'll find. However, I subscribe to:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. - English jurist William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1760s.

I just can't get it in my head that anyone can justify in their minds asset forfeiture without conviction.

I've read the decision and it was very narrow.

It only says that the states are bound by the same consitutional restraints on excessive fines and proportionality but it gave no opinion or disapproval of the civil forfeiture practice.

This will be up to the states to determine the limits. In the case subject to the decision, the court acknowledged that the vehicle was purchased with legitimate and untainted funds but the seizure was made because selling of heroin was made in the vehicle.

The question of proportionality was untouched and the legality was left in place. In no portion of the decision does it say that civil forfeiture is constitutionaly impermissible. There is acknowledement of abuses but the practice is still allowed.

So the states will get a chance to figure this out and we'll be back in court down the road.

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
Seize post conviction. No more burden of proof on the accused to prove assets are legit.

This ^^^

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
If the police had not severely and over a very long period of time abused this process, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


You can put the blame squarely on those greedy agencies who used these laws for their personal shopping sprees.

I know we have police officers in the forum who think that asset forfeiture laws are great things and they don't like my opinion or the opinions of others about this stuff being shot down. Again, look to the behavior of your own agencies before you get your mad on. It has become crystal clear that these laws were being abused, blatantly and severely. If this crook or that gets to keep his ill-gotten gains because these laws are being shot down, you know who to blame

I’m a retired police officer, and I completely agree with Para. And I worked for NC where they have the forfeit stuff under control. But I know it’s abused elsewhere and it needs to go away.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
... I see it as a loss to LE who used the tool in accordance with the law under strict guidelines.

A key point to keep in mind here is that the SCOTUS did not just change this law. The law has been since the Bill of Rights. LE wasn't using this "tool" in accordance with the law. They were ignoring the law, to create a tool. And whether they did it to bad people, or good people, it's still against the law. and it always has been.

Good.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I haven't read the decision but even before today I was still very much in favor of pre-conviction forfeiture.

I need to read the decision but as az478 said, forfeiture, at least on the basis that I'm familiar with, is not done ad hoc on a willy-nilly basis and the funds or items seized aren't given to or the property of the agency.

"Hey, let's arrest these suspected druggies. I need a new car for work and we can use their cash to fund the office water and coffee clubs or get new workout equipment."

Doesn't work that way.

What is so difficult for you (and AZ478) to understand about due process? You CANNOT seize & forfeit property without a criminal conviction, period. It doesn't matter what you believe, or suspect said property is involved with or tied to. You have to prove it in a court of law. Punishment comes after a crime, not before. Your attitude seems to be "Meh, they're shitbags anyway", and that the end justifies the means. Worked with a lot of cops over the years who believed the same way, and every single one of them were unethical & had no business wearing the badge.

Greedy forfeitures and Eminent Domain land takeovers by private companies for profit gains need to be throttled.

About damn time.
A good start...

quote:

Originally posted by akcopnfbks:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I haven't read the decision but even before today I was still very much in favor of pre-conviction forfeiture.

I need to read the decision but as az478 said, forfeiture, at least on the basis that I'm familiar with, is not done ad hoc on a willy-nilly basis and the funds or items seized aren't given to or the property of the agency.

"Hey, let's arrest these suspected druggies. I need a new car for work and we can use their cash to fund the office water and coffee clubs or get new workout equipment."

Doesn't work that way.

What is so difficult for you (and AZ478) to understand about due process? You CANNOT seize property & forfeit property without a criminal conviction, period. It doesn't matter what you believe, or suspect, said property is involved with or tied to. You have to prove it in a court of law. Punishment comes after a crime, not before. Your attitude seems to be "Meh, they're shitbags anyway", and that the end justifies the means. Worked with a lot of cops over the years who believed the same way, and every single one of them were unethical & had no business wearing the badge.

Slow down, Tiger.

As I said earlier, this is something that can be and has been abused and the abuse is wrong and needs to stop.

What you are cloaking yourself in is the mantle that everything is lily white clean until there is a cracking of the gavel but I think your anger is misplaced.

If a perp is arrested and the search finds a gun on his person or vehicle and he says he lawfully owns it, should we just give it back to him to use as he wishes until there's a trial on the ownership? Of course you're not believing that but that's what you're saying when you say all forfeiture pre-trial is wrong.

You must not work active cases where there is a long and I mean very tall pile of exhibits, affidavits, limited search warrants, wires, records multiple prosecuting attorney's constantly weighing whether is sufficient evidence, presenting it to the judge and whole very deep and involved process just to get to the arrest warrant and search and seizure side.

99% of what you're complaining about I'd venture to say you have no working knowledge of. You cite dirty cops but that would not be my experience at all.

Cash is the oxygen of the cartels and drug trafficing organizations. It's hid, moved, laundered and washed in various ways to keep it from being seized because without cash, the cartels can't stay in business and the seizure of cash and assets is not a whimsical daliance by LEO. If the taint is removed the property is returned.

I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court carefully noted during their discussions that pre-trial civil forfeiture had a proper place and was not unconstitutional. It's still allowed and nothing from today changes that.

What happens next is the states get to determine what is proportional but the Supremes in no way struck down the practice.

Seizure is on solid ground and I'm fully supporting the proper use.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

If a perp is arrested and the search finds a gun on his person or vehicle and he says he lawfully owns it, should we just give it back to him to use as he wishes until there's a trial on the ownership?

I don't know. What was he arrested for?

I don’t know why we don’t pass an amendment that clearly states “Every right enumerated in the United States Constitutuion is incorporated to the various states.” [rhetorical question] Why must we spend so much time and money doing it piecemeal through the courts? [/rhetorical question]

As SFL pointed out, nobody lost here. A right was incorporated, period. The only LE agencies who loose here are those who are infringing on people’s rights. There shouldn’t be any hand wringing about the loss of an enforcement tool, for no tool was taken away.