Posted on 08/21/2014 4:34:38 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
In a decision that civil rights groups said would protect property owners' rights, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained during illegal searches cannot be used to take someone's property through the civil forfeiture process.
The ruling comes in the case of a man whose vehicle and money were seized by Plymouth police after they found drugs during a 2012 traffic stop. During the civil forfeiture process in state court, a judge said the stop was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the man has standing to challenge the civil forfeiture and sent the case back to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to resolve a host of legal issues.
Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said his office is considering its options, which include arguing before the appeals court or appealing the entire case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Civil forfeiture is a legal process that gives law enforcement power to take property allegedly connected to a crime. Until recently in Minnesota, authorities could use civil forfeiture even if a person was not convicted of wrongdoing. It's different from a criminal forfeiture, where authorities can claim cash or property obtained through illegal activity only after someone is convicted.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Civil forfeiture is a legal process that gives law enforcement power to take property allegedly connected to a crime.
Civil Forfeiture law is bad law. Notice the word allegedly,
with no right of return of said property, that once in the hands of “the authorities” could be gone forever. The Founder’s are rolling over you know where.
Civil forfeiture should not provide incentive for anyone, or any agency of Government to seek after someones property for gain.
Well said.
Legalized looting for police departments.
This is a good decision.
Now the courts need to take the next step and declare the current civil forfeiture process unconstitutional.
I agree 100%. The 4th and 5th Amendments mean what they say: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Civil forfeiture laws lack legitimacy, since they involve taking property without what any reasonable person would consider due process.
I don't like pedophiles, drug dealers, or democrats at all, but even the worst among us are entitled to due process, and civil forfeiture does not provide due process. Not liking a group is not a valid reason for taking property without due process, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt and of a link between the crime and the property.
Civil forfeiture is no more than government sanctioned theft.
It should never have been allowed to start.
Same thing with the police theft of weapons before conviction;if you are not in jail you should have the right of self-defense.
I think how city lawsuits are paid for police misdoings needs reform ,too.
They do wrong,city gets sued, taxpayers get shafted-rinse and repeat.
What incentive do they have to change when taxpayers always get to pay ?
I see what you did there. LOL
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.