One down, fifty-six to go....
Posted on 04/20/2016 12:16:36 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts signed a bill on Tuesday that eliminates civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize and keep property without filing charges or securing criminal convictions. The bill, LB 1106, passed the unicameral legislature last week by a vote of 38 to 8.
Civil forfeiture has ensnared a wide swath of victims in Nebraska. A Peruvian pastor once had $14,000 seized during a traffic stop. Only after the local chapter of the ACLU intervened was he able to recover his cash. Last year, a federal appellate court upheld forfeiting more than $63,000 in savings from a decorated Air Force veteran, even though he was never charged with a crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The good news: Hopefully this is the start of a nationwide trend.
The bad news: In the short-term criminal drug gangs are going to be making a beeline for Nebraska.
My sister owed me several thousand dollars. She said, “I have cash if you want it.” I said, “no, because if I get stopped by a cop they can simply take it and I’ll have to prove it wasn’t from drugs. Why take the chance?”
In Florida, many of the local police and sheriff’s departments maintain groups whose sole function is civil forfeiture. They are busy every day as that is their job: policing for profit.
Glad to hear it. This arbitrary theft by “law enforcement” of personal property needs to stop.
Yep, they call it, “policing for profit”.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Incorporated against the States in [at least] Benton v. Maryland, Malloy v. Hogan, Miranda v. Arizona, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago.
This law is needed exactly why?
[Yes, it's a rhetorical question...]
One down, fifty-six to go....
This is awesome. Great news.
I'm not sure that would be wise since their police are going to have to work to actually secure a conviction. But you are right about it being a possible short-term consequence.
One down, 49 to go, and this practice should have been struck down by the Supreme Court in 1827.
What a novel idea.
Trial first, then the verdict.................
For once, I am really, really proud of my state.
Civil forfeiture is one of the most compelling reasons that the WOD should be ended.
Since you didn't know the answer, you shouldn't have made it a rhetorical question.
Forfeiture statutes do have due process provisions. Anyone that has had their property seized has redress in court. (Actually, in the federal system, all you have to do is file an administrative claim, and the feds either have to file a court action or give the property back).
It's just that the criminals don't usually want to open that can of worms. As the excerpt noted, when the Peruvian pastor went to court, he got the money back.
On the other hand, when the 'disabled Air Force veteran' tried to get his cash back, it turned out he had lied to the cop who stopped him (said he didn't have money for a motel room when he had $1000 in his pocket and the bundles of cash in grocery bags), and he had information with him on how to manufacture hashish. http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-1787/14-1787-2015-03-23.pdf?ts=1427124666
Yes, the 'disabled veteran' not only had due process at the trial court level, he had an appeal to the Eighth Circuit. He lost both times.
Did the Pastor get his lawyer’s fee, court costs and $15 per hour back? Forbes doesn’t like my ad block and won’t let me read their stuff.
Some answers from last October: http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/with-nebraska-fifth-in-receipts-from-civil-forfeiture-aclu-seeks/article_9881358b-bd9a-5aca-bc08-cb1620bcd63b.html
“Currently, if a person has their property seized, the burden of proof is turned on them, instead of prosecutors, as it would be in criminal cases. In a civil forfeiture case, property owners aren’t entitled to a court-appointed attorney. If they can’t afford one, they must fight it alone, Miller said.
“One of the more troubling things to me is, essentially, they put these individuals in a position where they have to choose between their liberty or money,” Lincoln attorney Justin Cook said.
It took Silva three months to get his money back, two days after the ACLU intervened.
“He didn’t get an apology,” Miller said.”
“The bad news: In the short-term criminal drug gangs are going to be making a beeline for Nebraska.”
A. The drug gangs are already there.
B. The drug gangs are everywhere else where this unconstitutional practice is used.
C. The practice hasn’t helped since you can still buy illegal drugs just about anywhere
The "conservative" members of the Court (+Ginsberg) simply got this wrong in Bennis v. Michigan.
A new SCOTUS needs to overturn it. "Redress" as "due process" is baloney. No one should have to appeal to a process the government has no right to exercise in the first place, nor, contrary to the Court's erroneous conclusion in Bennis did such forfeiture exist in the manner currently abused at the time of the founding.
Had the Founders intended the government to be allowed to preemptively seize property subject to later return, the Constitution would have said something like, "no property may be seized without redress." It doesn't, because the Founders intended no such thing, and abusing the Constitution in this way is a disgrace.
And you're OK with govt stealing his money without him even being charged with a crime, let alone convicted?
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.