Replies

You have proven nothing. I will not take your so called analysis over the law. The law is clear. Without the due process of the law, you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, and property.

SCOTUS says you are wrong.

Under federal and state laws known as civil forfeiture, police can seize cash or property if they suspect it's tied to an illegal activity even if the property owner isn't charged with a crime. On its face, this practice seems like an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment's stipulation that you can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. That court has issued a number of rulings upholding civil forfeiture, including one in 1996 that said seizure of an innocent person's property didn't violate due process. In that case, a Michigan woman named Tina Bennis fought the seizure of her car after her husband was caught having sex with a prostitute in it.

For her part, Bennis argued she had no clue her husband would use the car for the illegal tryst. The high court ruled that didn't matter, citing the following case law:

"It has long been settled that statutory forfeitures of property entrusted by the innocent owner or lienor to another who uses it in violation of the revenue laws of the United States is not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."

You can be completely innocent of any crime -- not even ACCUSED!-- and your property is still forfeit.

If you feel this is Constitutional, then you are a Statist copsucker.

Even the case you cited, the woman’s car was used by her husband to commit a crime. It was her husband’s car, too. Can you show me a property seizure where the owner or the guardian wasn’t involved in a crime? If not, the constitutional due process was followed. Stop making excuses for the criminals.

Sidebar comment: I am a cop and I agree with you that asset forfeiture is out of control. Michigan just passed a asset forfeiture reform law. It’s a good start, but only a start.