Replies

Just because there are some "suspicious circumstances" does not mean the person was involved with drug activity. I did read the case, and saw where the court said that a dog alerting to a pile of money that had been in a rental vehicle was "strong evidence" of drug activity. I say that's a bunch of bull manure. Those dogs alert all the time when there are no drugs present at all and rental cars have probably all had drugs in them at one point or another. People who think forfeitures without good evidence of drug activity are just fine will sing a different tune the day they have a couple of grand with them they had just earned or whatever and law enforcement seizes it. That happens all the time. They'll take people's rent money, the proceeds from a check they've just cashed, and so on. Then these people have to hire lawyers and pretty much prove that none of the money was from a drug transaction or intended to be used for a drug transaction. Most don't have the resources to fight these cases, and the easier we make it for law enforcement to seize our money without good reason the more people out there who will get screwed. Is it so much to ask that the government have to present some substantial evidence to prove their case before they deprive us of our property? Whether these people in this case were involved with drugs or not isn't so important. What matters is that the government should have to prove their case in order to succeed on a forfeiture action or else there will be innocent people being robbed of their money all the time by law enforcement. If we don't hold them to their burden of proof in every case then innocent people will suffer.

What matters is that the government should have to prove their case in order to succeed on a forfeiture action or else there will be innocent people being robbed of their money all the time by law enforcement.
Your words indicate a future event. It sure sounds like it is already happening to me.

Hey, Bob, do you stil believe we can "ensure" law enforcement's honesty with a simple test when a handful of money is in their fist and "no questions will be asked" is the predominate thought?
Your final recourse is simply "to have them arrested". That ends it all, in your book, doesn't it.
Most would label that as reactive, not proactive. The root of the problem still exists and an arrest or two when someone is finally caught with their hand in the cookie jar is not taking care of the problems of police corruption.

"What matters is that the government should have to prove their case in order to succeed"

The guy's story was full of holes. He's lucky he lost just the money.

You'd rather this "doofus without a clue" be criminally charged and tell his "story" on the witness stand in front of a jury? Kind of a "winner take all" strategy? You'd do that to a client of yours?

Or would you tell him to shut up, forget about the money, and get on with his life?

"If we don't hold them to their burden of proof in every case then innocent people will suffer."

You know a lot of innocent people this happened to? What, you asked them if they were innocent?