quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
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.
_________________________________________________
Not what I'm saying at all, I'm not that naive. What I'm saying is that without proof you don't get to seize assets absent a conviction. Suspicion doesn't equal guilt, and correlation does not equal causation.
_________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________
Again, not at all what I'm saying. Forfeiture implies the item is no longer available for the owner to retrieve. Normally with assets this is because an auction is held, or the department sells whatever the item is. Holding a firearm seized in the course of a (for example) DUI arrest in safekeeping until the owner is out of jail & can show proof of ownership to reclaim his/her property is different from seizing house/car/cash with suspected drug ties (for example).
_________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________
No, I've done all of that. I understand following the paper, conducting a thorough investigation, and presenting your probable cause to the DAO & judges in order to obtain wires, warrants, Facebook/social media account information, forensic computer/cell phone recovery, etc. I get it. Spent my last three years working internet sex crime stuff, and several years prior to that working the "war" on drugs investigations. None of what you are talking about, however, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which can ONLY be obtained in a criminal trial. Probable cause does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
_________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________
And you'd be wrong. I cited unethical cops who believe the end justifies the means. Not the same thing as overt corruption, which exists, but is rare.
_________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________
Agreed with the first part, and I agree that the idea of seizure isn't whimsical dalliance. In practice the feds were the worst violators in my experience, particularly the DEA.
_________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________
Agreed. It was a narrow scope decision.
_________________________________________________
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:

During oral arguments in November, Indiana's solicitor general got boxed into a corner by Justice Stephen Breyer, who managed to twist the government's lawyer into arguing that Indiana should be allowed to seize vehicles for as small an offense as driving 5 mph over the speed limit

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Nope, not all. I'm not talking about a traffic stop where personal property/assets are seized. Although you'd be surprised how often hundreds of thousands of dollars are seized along known drug and human smuggling corridors in this country, usually in the possession of illegals with no explanation as to how they came to possess that much money.

Our probable cause, supported by a lengthy affidavit which usually detailed months of investigation, documentation and surveillance, at the direction of a special prosecutor and approved by a county or state or federal judge (depending on jurisdiction) was not easily obtained as some would think. If we didn't have proof, it was returned.

If LE wasn't able to seize early enough, the assets would be transferred and disappear.

Believe what you want, but it's not always as defense attorneys would have you believe.

Yes, this is hugely correct.

The forfeiture is the end of a process that was lengthy, with plenty of AUSA oversight and lots of affidavits, supporting documents to support the underlying arrest and the accompaning forfeiture.

This is not some bubba sheriff hiding behind a bush with his radar gun and then seizing a car and contents for his department or personal use.

Far from it.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
Wow! You know a law is ridiculously egregious when you get a unanimous slap down. About time.

quote:

The Indiana Supreme Court overturned that decision on the ground that the ban on excessive fines does not apply to the states.

quote:

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
But one point is that we have not incorporated the rights against the states wholesale. It has been done piecemeal, and not all rights have been incorporated yet.