Posted on 01/03/2017 1:01:46 PM PST by reaganaut1
By a very large measure, Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture. They think that it is wrong for the government to take property from someone who has not been convicted of any crime. The most recent evidence showing that is found in a recent Cato Institute survey on public attitudes toward the police and in it, 84 percent said they oppose allowing the police to seize a person’s property on mere suspicion that he may have been involved in crime.
Unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump’s choice for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, is among that small minority of Americans who reflexively support civil asset forfeiture because it supposedly helps fight crime. At least, those were his thoughts during a Judiciary Committee hearing on civil asset forfeiture in May 2015.
The committee had listened to testimony from Russ Caswell of Tewksbury, MA. He explained how his family-owned motel was seized by federal and local officials because some of his customers had violated drug laws while in the rooms they had rented. That was sufficient grounds for the seizure, which would have netted the cooperating agencies (the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Tewksbury Police) roughly $2 million after selling the property. Caswell would have lost nearly his entire wealth merely because of criminal activity he did not know about occurred on his property.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Civil asset forfeiture is something that needs to be ended. Permanently. Hopefully Trump will overrule Sessions on this unjust crap.
bttt
However as the article states, Congress can act and Trump could sign and do away with forfeiture. Which would be the right thing. And as a bonus solidify Trump's record as a proactive executive.
I see nothing wrong with it so long as all the facts are in before it occurs. If, for example, when (and only when) the motel owner is proved to be involved with the crime should he lose his business. To do so beforehand is clearly a violation of his protections against search and seizure.
That does not describe what's happening.
You are correct that legislation needs to be enacted, nevertheless we shouldn’t endorse someone in favor of civil asset forfeiture.
.......but WHO determines the motel owner is “involved”?
that’s my worry..........the compromise has always been a judge. In Texas, the State Judges are elected. Setting aside that controversial issue, I just don’t trust cops to make these kinds of decisions.
The facts are never in before the forfeiture. This is flat out government stealing.
Upon conviction, the proceeds of criminal activity should be forfeited. But ONLY upon conviction.
“Hopefully Trump will overrule Sessions on this unjust crap.”
One thing that concerns me is we are building up such high hopes that Trump will resolve thirty years of social and economic commie creep, instantly, that no matter how well he performs we will inevitably be disappointed in the lack of progress on our individual issues.
Agreed. Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination.
I’d love to read the article, but Forbes Magazine does not like my AdBlock software, and I’m not willing to give that up.
I suspect this is a weighty subject. My first thought was eminent domain, itself a topic that deserves carful deliberation. Somewhat related, are the rights of a minority of condo owners against the majority.
What are the rights of a property owning minority, compared to the majority?
Sure I think property rights are important. But can a hold-out individual stop development of a dam? The development of a city block?
Granted, asset forfeiture is different. The threshold for asset forfeiture should be high, as it should be for exercising eminent domain, or forcing a minority of condo owners to the will of a majority. But the threshold should not be prohibitively high.
By best (or at least initial) effort to address this generally is: look to the specifics, to precedent, and to the language of law.
Ask people whose land is discovered to sit on oil, minerals, etc. Uranium especially that the BLM wants.
Imminent domain is not the same as civil forfeiture, right?
If he’s on board with seizures of property before conviction, I have a problem with him. After, I don’t care.
But during that time, the defendant is NOT allowed to sell, transfer, etc., the property. And here we go...more conditions.
Session is the man. Go Trump! Go Sessions!
Exactly. Civil asset forfeiture is governmental stealing and completely without due process of law. Basically, if you run afoul of the law for any reason, the cops can rob you blind without every taking you to court. That’s absolutely, positively criminal behavior on their part as far as I’m concerned.
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.