Long overdue. I hope SCOTUS reels them in.

https://www.rutherford.org/pub...s_of_innocent_owners

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In Culley v. Marshall, The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, and Cato Institute joined in an amicus brief to argue against the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

“Asset forfeiture is the government’s new, twisted form of guilt by association. Only it’s not the citizenry being accused of wrongdoing, just their money,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “What this adds up to is a paradigm in which Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties. All you have to be is in possession of something the government wants.”

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity, then whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was not connected to criminal activity or that the owner had no involvement or knowledge of the criminal activity. But challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself.

Many of these asset forfeiture cases involve no criminal charge against the property owner. For example, in February 2019, Alabama police seized vehicles belonging to Halima Culley and Lena Sutton while the cars were being used by other individuals accused of drug possession. Although Culley and Sutton were themselves innocent of any wrongdoing, the state seized their vehicles and filed civil asset forfeiture actions to take ownership. While the courts finally found Culley and Sutton innocent and entitled to the return of their vehicles, they were deprived of the use of their vehicles for 20 months and 12 months respectively. In filing suit against the state, Culley and Sutton claimed a violation of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not provided with a prompt hearing for the opportunity to keep possession of their vehicles pending trial. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuits. In filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the government’s practice of delaying forfeiture hearings for over a year violates due process rights and leverages severe hardships against innocent owners, often forcing them to give up and settle with the government so they can recover some of their property.

Abram J. Pafford, Francis J. Aul, and Timothy J. Whittle of McGuireWoods LLP advanced the arguments in the cert petition and merits amicus briefs for Culley v. Marshall.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Yes, long overdue, agreed.

There is no reason this should be done, other than if large amounts of drugs/narcotics are found with the cash as in a drug raid. Subjecting people who carry cash to forfeiture is criminal.

I hope SCOTUS torches the goddamn practice altogether. Civil Asset Forfeiture is corrupt third world type shit and is antithetical to the libertine fabric of our nation.

I was so pissed off when Jeff Sessions made the decision to keep it in place. This program is so ripe for abuse.

I hope SCOTUS burns Civil Asset Forfeiture to the ground. CAF is so blatantly unconstitutional I cannot believe it hasn't, already.

This doesn’t seem like a hard one to decide. I would love a lawyer reason why this still is in existence. It seems so obviously in violation of common sense let alone the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I hope SCOTUS burns Civil Asset Forfeiture to the ground. CAF is so blatantly unconstitutional I cannot believe it hasn't, already.

Just like Affirmative Action and the NFA(et alia). I’m disappointed it takes so long to free ourselves once government seizes liberty and assets. Politicians intellectualizing our rights, freedom and assets away is no less tyrannical than overt captivity. In circumspect though, it’s probably better than having a civil or revolutionary war every 50 years though. Of that we can be grateful. I suppose that actually is democracy in action.

There was a Sheriff in Louisiana from a Parish that encompassed Interstate 12 . For a while he was terrorizing everyone he stopped and seizing everything in sight . There was one particular case where a Vietnamese fisherman was on his way to buy a new boat from an individual and he was carrying a huge amount of cash . Not unusual for these folks to deal in cash . The poor guy got stopped for something and ended up having his money seized . The newspapers were all over it .

This message has been edited. Last edited by: selogic,

It needs to be said again, thank the good Lord for Donald Trump as 45th President. Having the good fortune to appoint 3 qualified justices.

Shudder to think where we would be if HRC had won in 2016....

His appointees are slowly correcting various injustices that previously appeared to be forever.

I know of one CAF case I supported. Just one.

Somehow the IRS learned a South American cartel managed to buy a new Gulfstream jet, a 650, IIRC.

The IRS intercepted it on the ramp, in front of the new flight crew and their employers.

A fed.gov pilot and copilot hopped onboard and off she went.

$60M airplane.

^^^^^ There's a difference.

When the IRS seizes something it's for taxes owed. They sell the asset and apply the proceeds to your debt. If you owe less than what they realize in the sale, you get the difference back.

Let's say your local police department seized the jet for drugs. They could paint DARE on the side and use it to fly the chief around as if it was their own.

That's the part I have a problem with. Government entities should not be enriched simply for doing their jobs. It's also that enrichment that has led to abuse by those who want money more than they want bad guys.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
^^^^^ There's a difference.

When the IRS seizes something it's for taxes owed. They sell the asset and apply the proceeds to your debt. If you owe less than what they realize in the sale, you get the difference back.

There was no obvious tax liability on the money paid for the aircraft.
It was listed as a case of civil asset forfeiture in the IRS annual report on CAFs done the previous fiscal year.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I know of one CAF case I supported. Just one.

Somehow the IRS learned a South American cartel managed to buy a new Gulfstream jet, a 650, IIRC.

The IRS intercepted it on the ramp, in front of the new flight crew and their employers.

A fed.gov pilot and copilot hopped onboard and off she went.

$60M airplane.

All depends on how you view it. A criminal organization being robbed by, well.... what some people think is perhaps the biggest criminal organization in the world, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Modern day writs of assistance.

I expect these laws to be struck down.

God let's hope so. Wipe it off the map.

The article quoted in the OP mentions the Fourteenth Amendment. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment address this type of thing?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
The article quoted in the OP mentions the Fourteenth Amendment. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment address this type of thing?

Fourth would apply to Federal seizures, the Fourteenth expressly restricts state activity.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
The article quoted in the OP mentions the Fourteenth Amendment. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment address this type of thing?

Fourth would apply to Federal seizures, the Fourteenth expressly restricts state activity.

I have no education re law, constitutional or other, so my line of reasoning here may very well be flawed.

I do not see any reference to the level of government, federal, state, or other, in the Fourth Amendment (quoted below). Other amendments -- I'm thinking specifically of the Second -- have been interpreted by SCOTUS to apply to states, as well as federal. First Amendment says "Congress shall . . ." but this has been held to apply to states, as well. Given those considerations, why would the Fourth not be applicable to states, as well as federal? Not being a smart-ass, I'm asking because I truly don't understand.

quote:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I do not see any reference to the level of government, federal, state, or other, in the Fourth Amendment (quoted below). Other amendments -- I'm thinking specifically of the Second -- have been interpreted by SCOTUS to apply to states, as well as federal. First Amendment says "Congress shall . . ." but this has been held to apply to states, as well. Given those considerations, why would the Fourth not be applicable to states, as well as federal? Not being a smart-ass, I'm asking because I truly don't understand.

The BoR was originally applied only to Federal activity. As of the 14th Amendment the principle of Incorporation began to be applied to the States. I believe the entire BoR was subsequently Incorporated? If so, then: Yes, the 4th should apply to State and local governments, just as it does the Federal government.