Posted on 09/21/2015 5:48:32 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Findings of a recent poll suggest that most Americans are unfamiliar with civil asset forfeiture laws, a highly controversial policy that lets police and prosecutors seize private property — including cash, vehicles, and homes — without ever convicting the owner of a crime, or in some cases, even arresting the person.
In a Huffington Post/YouGov survey released Aug. 28, nearly 3 of every 4 respondents (72 percent) answered no when asked if they had heard of the term “civil asset forfeiture.”
A majority wrongly believed that an individual’s property can be seized “only if the person has been charged with and convicted of a crime.”
Only 30 percent (correctly) believed that law enforcement can permanently seize property based on a mere suspicion that it is connected to illegal activity, with no evidence or arrest, much less a conviction. Details on the poll’s methodology can be found here.
The findings indicate that most Americans share the belief of a growing number of experts on both sides of the political spectrum that civil asset forfeiture circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, among others. (It’s no coincidence that this post on a free-market organization’s website reports the findings of a survey commissioned by the left-leaning Huffington Post.)
While laws governing civil asset forfeiture vary by state, the majority of states as well as the federal government allow law enforcement officials to seize personal property immediately if they believe it may be connected to some sort of criminal activity.
The standard of proof required to permanently seize property varies by state. Some states require only a preponderance of evidence, which requires merely showing that property is more likely than not connected to illegal activity. Needless to say, this standard falls far short of the “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for criminal convictions.
A number of cases of asset forfeiture involve innocent people found to be carrying an amount of cash larger than what is allowed under some official’s arbitrary definition of normal, or traveling routes deemed suspicious. In most states, people who wish to get their seized property back must prove that it is not connected to any illegal activity. The person who fails the difficult task of "proving the negative" may never see the property again.
In effect, the property, not its owner, is charged with a crime, and is considered guilty until proven innocent. Among other distortions, this practice generates bizarre case titles such as United States v. $10,500 in U.S. Currency.
Even when its not impossible, proving a negative can be an expensive undertaking, which means it is especially difficult for people of limited means. In many cases, property owners don’t even try because the effort and expense exceeds the value of what was taken.
The public seems to agree that this is unfair. In the poll, 71 percent agreed that “law enforcement should only be able to permanently seize money or other property if that person is charged with and convicted of a crime.”
Only 7 percent thought that “law enforcement should be able to permanently seize money or other property if they suspect it’s connected to criminal activity, even if no charges have been filed.” Only 13 percent responded that the proceeds of property seizures “should go to the police department’s budget,” while 39 percent responded “it should go to the state’s budget”, and 27 percent said, “it should be used for something else.”
According to the Institute for Justice, about 4 out of 5 states direct a large portion of civil asset forfeitures directly to the police department that made the seizure, as well as to the prosecutors who litigated the case. This practice creates a strong incentive for law enforcement agencies to seize property. Federal forfeiture laws exacerbate this problem by establishing permissive standards.
For example, under federal rules local authorities can keep up to 80 percent of the assets they seize. Critics charge that this has fostered a system they call “policing for profit.”
In other words, law enforcement agencies prioritize the seizure of property that can financially benefit their department above applying neutral administration of the law. An IJ study explores this in depth.
Some states permit the questionable practice to be pushed even further. For example, all the proceeds of civil forfeiture in Michigan goes to law enforcement, skewing the incentives for police to expend effort on forfeiture cases than combating serious crimes.
Between 2001 and 2008, Michigan police collected $149 million in forfeiture revenue. This is one factor that caused IJ to give Michigan’s laws in this area a D- rating. The organization FreedomWorks gave Michigan a D.
While the poll confirms that most Americans are unaware of civil asset forfeiture, their beliefs about what it means are driving reform movements at both the state and federal levels. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has introduced a reform bill with bipartisan support, and the states of Montana and New Mexico recently enacted substantive reforms. In Michigan, California, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, bills are advancing that move in the same direction.
In enlightened nations, individuals suspected of a crime must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be punished. This standard should apply to their private property as well. That is the standard New Mexico recently adopted (no forfeiture unless a property owner is convicted), and other jurisdictions, including Michigan, should quickly follow suit.
Proving that the government and its JBTs are nothing but thieves working under the color of law.
You Cash can be guilty of being too much in one place.....
I dunno how you are supposed to hire a lawyer for your stash of cash....
Thus, for those who don’t believe in banks and prefer to keep their valuables hidden or locked up - remember you need to protect your valuables from the government just as much as from thieves. Particularly arms.
civil asset forfeiture circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution,It can, depending on the facts of the case. But generally, courts approve of civil asset forfeiture.
Forfeiture - Legal Information Institute cites some SCOTUS cases on the subject.
I turned in a note to the pilot of a jetliner regarding a passenger who I thought was going to hijack the plane. It turned out his nervousness was due to the fact that he had taped $180,000 to his body after a drug transaction onboard.
Subpoenaed, I flew to his trial, and having being found as no "expert" in drug-dealing, the money was subsequently returned to the Columbian national. :(
So it is pretty much just Government sponsored legalized Highway robbery.... LITERALLY!
The right to peaceably assemble is gone.
Like any legal tool, it can be used with care and discretion, or it can be abused. Government and courts are all about justifying the abuse of legal tools. Something changed (in the courts) over the years, and the system is now more or less self-serving.
So all the money and properties of the Clintons, Feinstein, Reid, Boxer etc etc etc can now be seized by the police?
I’ll bet 3 out of the 4 respondents can fill you in on the latest celebrity gossip and minute details about their favorite reality TV shows.
John Adams said...
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God … anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”
And they wonder why there’s a profound “us vs. them” attitude. “To protect and to serve” has been changed to “to abuse and to steal.”
Isn’t there something in an amendment to the Constitution that says government can’t do that? You remember, that “living, breathing document” that liberals have $h!t on?
Well, they can’t. But they do. Scum.
And the police wonder why the community no longer supports them. This is just one item on a very long list of police state activities. Go back to protect and serve or we are going to have to rethink the entire concept of local police. We have given them power, we can take it away, and we should.
California allows the feds to take the property, then shares the booty.
The Constitution?
It means less and less by the day.
I dont know if any presidential candidate could effecively campaign on this because it cannot easily be reduced to a bumper sticker. I would really love to see someone like Cruz try though.
It is sad that you cant really talk about anything today without having a bumper sticker slogan, because the average American is so incredibly poorly informed.
Sadly, you’ll still find supporters of civil asset forfieture right here on Free Republic. Thankfully those supporters have been drcreasing steadily over the years.
In as much as the 16th blatantly violates the same (+13th)...yet is ‘Law’.
All passed by the 3-pc sharks of Congress, approved by the ‘never wrong’ black-robes; most based on what the GOVT deems to be ‘illegal/bad’; since the fall of our Republic (c 1913)...regardless of the plain English reading of our Constitution.
I find my lack of faith in GOVT well placed (see: Kelo, EPA, TSA, etc.)
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.