Posted on 12/05/2018 9:36:47 AM PST by NobleFree
Just happen to be watching the 4th season of “The Shield” it goes into property seizures quite well.
It almost as hard as getting any politician or group of politicians to relinquish any form of revenue/theft from the powerless subjects.
This ^^^
That is true. It has been a practice in some federal drug cases where the govt offers a deal to the defendant in which the property is surrendered to the govt and either returned upon an acquittal or, if the property is sold subsequent to acquittal with the accused’s permission, proceeds of the sale are paid to the accused accused. The company I used to work for had a contract with the local U.S. Marshall office to sell it’s confiscated assets and the pickup said assets pending trial outcome. Almost all the assets were cars and trucks and we had an old midrise garage to store them in. Sometimes it would take four or five years to get clearance to sell one. In 1990, we held an absolute auction sale of 50 vehicles seized in one raid in the D.C. suburbs. There were 800 registered bidders for the 50 cars. It was held in February in bone-chilling cold and I stood with a couple of D.C. DEA agents against a building overlooking the auction line. One of the agents had a set of real long binoculars and was checking out the bidders. He told me it was common for the drug dealers’ buddies and competitors to come to these sales to buy selected cars. Frequently some of them would have federal warrants so it was sort of like a worthwhile honey trap. Prices paid for some of these were outrageous. A BMW 7 series with over 300,000 on the clock with lots of lower panel rust and totally faded interior with cracked dash and leather seats sold for $10,000. It was worth maybe two grand at the time. A Range Rover that was beat inside and out with about twenty nine millimeter bullet holes in the driver side door and posts sold for $15,000 when it wouldn’t even start.
I sort of agree, if the statute carries a fine, then property could be seized to pay the fine, if the convicted does not pay it, but then the balance needs to be returned to the owner of the property.
"Everyone knows" is the mob consensus that causes truth to be crucified at the place of the poll (hence the name Golgotha: poll, head count, census).
These insidious laws are no laws, but crack to corrupt, "cash-strapped" police departments. First they came for the drug dealers' cars...
In a just world, the guilty are put away after a proper trial and sentencing for their crimes. Then no one would need to be concerned with their buying habits and financial resources. The issue would take care of itself. Then they can purchase chewing gum in jail.
I think that these murky laws also serve to attract thieves to careers in law enforcement.
There is a novel by Dean Koontz called “Dark Rivers of the Heart” where a police chief pisses off the wrong rogue government employee, and discovers just how easily those asset forfeiture laws can be abused. All it took was for drugs to be planted at the chief’s house, then a anonymous tip called in. They took his cars, his house, his bank accounts. In the novel the chief’s brother, who is a lawyer told him “You better hope they file charges if you want to get your house,car,money back” ....It was fiction and I thought the scenario was a little over the top... until I am finding out Asset Forfeiture without a trial really does exist.
Non-living things don’t have intent. They can not “choose” to commit a crime. They, in fact, don’t commit crime. It’s why we say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
Imagine charging a murder weapon with the crime, confiscating it, and letting the person pulling the trigger go free. That is, in essence, what this is.
Otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court.
nless this is stopped, has one of the plaintiffs argued, we could all lose our vehicles for the simple Act of speeding.
Here's a prime example of federal hypocrisy.
So, one clause of the 8th Amendment applies to states, but the other one doesn't simply because they haven't ruled on it yet?
Silly me. I thought the BoR recognized these rights as were given to us by our divine Creator.
"Not so fast," says the federal government. "We, alone, decide when these unalienable divine rights apply and when they don't."
And, the feds have decided that the states can, indeed, levy excessive fines because the rights granted to us only apply at the federal level.
Rank hypocrisy.
I am reminded of all the times someone is traveling with their life savings and because all money has drug residue the money is guilty of a crime and sumairaly confiscated.
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, pay the fine, or have your stuff seized.”
Did you read the article? Because the State of Indiana is arguing that they can seize your vehicle for a speeding ticket if they want to do that.
Is that what you want? I ask because that’s what Indiana wants.
I get it if civil seizures are used sparingly and for important public projects. Instead, they’ve become in many cases get rich schemes for those who own adjacent properties and want easier access, more frontage, etc for private construction projects.
Waaay past time.
“In the United States, civil forfeiture was largely relegated to admiralty and customs law until the 1980s, when Congress and the states expanded its reach to permit its use against drug kingpins, money launderers, and organized crime.”
Not true. The black-robe fascist Rehnquist okayed asset forfeiture by digging up English common law piracy on the seas and applying it to our homes and the streets in America.
Rehnquist was vile, deep state traitor, even though some deluded people think he was a “conservative.”
While the Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibitions on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment apply against the states in Schilb v. Kuebel (1971) and Robinson v. California (1962), the court has indeed never held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states as well.
I would agree about don’t do the crime but civil forfeiture can be used against you simply because you have a large amount of cash on you and no mean s to account for it. People who travel with cash for a particular legal business are very susceptible.
I get it if civil seizures are used sparingly and for important public projects. Instead, they’ve become in many cases get rich schemes for those who own adjacent properties and want easier access, more frontage, etc for private construction projects.
I can see your point but if the burden of proof is out the window in one instance it will slowly creep into other instances. That is one of the things that is so dangerous about rape or sexual misconduct allegations or domestic violence allegations; you are often guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Another case is where sexual predators after serving time have more time added to their sentence (I have no soft spot for these guys). Some of the older ones did not have the life long monitoring as part of their sentence or in some cases they served straight time and are due release but are denied because they are a threat. Again, this is just suspicion on the part of the courts without proof. I don’t want these guys out but it is highly unconstitutional to add time after serving time. If it happens in that case it can happen in others. All I am saying is play by the rules, always.
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.