Posted on 12/11/2014 9:59:54 AM PST by MichCapCon
Alarming, no blanket and no pillow in a cold cell.
Asset forfeiture is a plague, a blight
Some poor gal in Orange County let her boyfriend borrow her car. Triple whammy:
1) Boyfriend gets arrested for soliciting prostitute, she has been cheated upon.
2) Arrest made the news, she is publicly humiliated.
3) Cops seize the vehicle.
I’m thinking that guy probably didn’t want to get bailed out!
And when they just don't like your explanation?
Well, he can grow 12 plants, plus 12 plants for each of four other people he legally has a card for.
That makes 60 plants allowable.
So, what is the issue?
A police state brought to us courtesy of libertarians.
Its amusing to me to read how many libs here at FR believe Eric Garner was killed over cigarette taxes.
Why, the cops should have just let him go when he began resisting arrest. Just like the cops should let you go with $20,000 in drug profits in your trunk.
Just because the Government calls it a drug don’t make it so and just because its illegal doesn’t mean the law is just !
And why should a citizen have to explain anything to a government flunkie?
/johnny
What!?
Seriously, what!?
It's statists that've brought us the police state, not libertarians.
You aren't a constitutionalist.
/johnny
/johnny
Following that logic, the police could enter your home and seize your guns because they have probable cause to believe you are going to shoot someone since you can’t prove you’re not going to shoot someone.
Simply saying they assume the money is connected to drugs and it’s up to you to prove otherwise is guilty until proven innocent.
How about cigarettes, twinkies, sodas, books, bibles... guns.
Ridiculous social “conservatives” (nannies) are crippling this nation.
I do not agree with the ‘medical’ marijuana laws however I do know math.
12 plants per person - 12 X 5 ( Himself and 4 others ) = 60. They found 55 plants. Which law did he break?
Just because the government says it's the law
doesn't mean that it's legitimate — take, for instance, the following from New Mexico's State Statutes prohibits carrying [and keeping] on university properties:
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.Now, the New Mexico State Constitution says this:
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) "university premises" means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]Now, obviously the aforementioned statute does exactly this, moreover it prohibits a citizen-student from keeping [with him] his weapon in student housing.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
We have essentially the same thing with the War on Drugs: there is no Constitutional grounds for the laws, but they are instead rooted in Wickard v. Filburn's radical expansion of the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
The Institute for Justice is fighting the civil forfeiture abuses.
Like Tenaha targeting out of state cars, pulling them over, taking all cash and threatening in some cases to arrest parents and give kids to CPS if you don’t sign over the cash.
Repeated cases where kid takes the car, drives drunk or buys drugs or picks up a prostitute, room mate or parent loses the car to forfeiture though they weren’t driving it at the time or committing the crime.
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bennis v. Michigan[54] that property owners do not have a constitutional right to an “innocent owner” defense in civil forfeiture actions. In Bennis, a wife’s car was used without her knowledge by her husband to secure the services of a prostitute. The husband was arrested and the car seized. Under Michigan law, vehicles used for such purposes were subject to seizure and forfeiture.
Furthermore, Michigan law did not provide for a defense based on an owner’s lack of knowledge about the use of the vehicle for illegal purposes—in other words, that the owner is innocent, and therefore the property should not be forfeited. The wife appealed the forfeiture of the vehicle, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against her.
Cases where someone was never charged with a crime, but police kept the guns, money, TVs, etc. In a few occasions, someone was found not guilty but the civil forfeiture case is against the property, not you, so losing your home or car or money isn’t considered double jeopardy.
The true corruption is where states may have high standards before police can forfeit your property, but the police can get around that by partnering with the feds, then using federal standards. But unlike choosing state versus federal bankruptcy laws to pick which is better for your situation, police use the federal partnership to get around more restrictive state laws.
You seem to have that exactly backwards. It is not up to me to have to explain why I have $20k in cash (maybe I don't trust banks). It is up to them to show that the money is from a criminal enterprise BEFORE they take it away from me.
It’s a sad sick world where having money is probable cause.
| C. Edmund Wright |
Does the 8th amendment convey rights to non citizens and our enemies......? do tell..... |
|---|---|
| OneWingedShark | Does the 8th amendment convey rights to non citizens and our enemies......? From the preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.and the Eighth: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.The intent is simple: the Bill of Rights is not for Citizens, but for government, more specifically restraining it. The wording of the eighth is likewise simple: a prohibition on cruel, unusual punishments as well as excessive bail/fines. |
| C. Edmund Wright |
you could not be more wrong - it is for the constraint of government, but only the AMERICAN GOVT VIS A VIS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN. What kind of liberal bullsh-t education do you have? |
| OneWingedShark | you could not be more wrong - it is for the constraint of government, but only the AMERICAN GOVT VIS A VIS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN. Ah, so when the Sixth Amendment says I suppose the Natural Born Citizen requirement doesn't apply to non-citizens either, in your model, because the Constitution's constraints only apply WRT Citizens. In any case, your view of things has an absolutely terrible loophole: there are actions which the government says terminate your citizenship, if this is of unconstrained scope it could be expanded so that it is very easy to lose your citizenship and, after that, deny you all the [legal] protections you had by virtue of your citizenship. What kind of liberal bullsh-t education do you have? I'm a computer programmer; CS is one of the fields that's largely insulated from |
| C. Edmund Wright |
but you idiot....you are ignoring the entire template......this is written ONLY FOR CITIZENS. That’s the context. You need to get your brain out of the left brained programming world and learn a little something about the broad view, the big picture. You’re so buried in details you’ve forgotten WTF you are even reading!! |
| OneWingedShark | but you idiot....you are ignoring the entire template......this is written ONLY FOR CITIZENS. That’s the context. No, it's not; the context of the Bill of Rights is explicitly laid out in its own prologue: THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.It explicitly spells out that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to add declaratory/restrictive clauses to ensure that the government's powers (a) won't be misconstrued, (b) won't be abused, and (c) tempered in a manner beneficial for the government-as-an-institution. — It would be entirely improper to take them as binding against citizens because the citizens are not the government. You need to get your brain out of the left brained programming world and learn a little something about the broad view, the big picture. You’re so buried in details you’ve forgotten WTF you are even reading!! The Bill of Rights? The left-brain is precisely where you want to be when dealing with law; many of the terribad [judicial] decisions we've seen in the past hundred years are precisely elevating expedience over the actual text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, take for example Schenck v. United States: We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.Look, they are explicitly saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights, but because Congress has a right to preventthings of a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evilsthey can ignore the Bill of Rights, namely the First Amendment prohibition on abridging the freedom of the press [or speech]. And you're trying to tell me that the |
| C. Edmund Wright |
you are an idiot. You haven’t laid a hand on my case, which is slam dunk against you. You use hundreds and hundreds of words - and yet you don’t address the issue. You have yet to point out a damned syllable that would indicate this is for Citizens. |
logicof feeling.
They may have probable cause to seize cash as evidence.
Not confiscate it permanently, as is figured into so many police department budgets.
Indeed, there are many stories out there of “shopping lists” that circulate among police departments about what goods they want seized for department goodies. That practice puts the lie to the idea that seizures are for evidence. The shopping lists are prima facie evidence that the purpose of the seizures is legalized theft benefiting police.
Probable Cause may allow search. Searches may result in the retention of evidence.
Subsequent process-free seizure is too frequent, and in my mind, unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.