[adam_smith_76]

The way it works is that the money is arrested, not the person. Money has no rights under the law, so it can't be given due process. Generally, amounts in excess of $10,000 are subject to confiscation. The courts have upheld this as reasonable in fighting the war on drugs. In order to get your money back, you must prove that it was not used in a crime, so the burden of proof is reversed. This policy has been most notoriously abused in the great state of Louisiana (anyone surprised?). The war on personal property rights continues...

[MichiganConservative]

...this as reasonable in fighting the war on drugs.

At least that war on drugs has proven as effective as it has.

[TheKidster]

I'm not surprised, it's just good business. The goverment creates a black market monopoly that enforces itself. They then profit from this monopoly by a small bit of propaganda to scare dim whitted suburbanite housewives and disconnected workaholic dads while they sip thier coctails during Dan Rather's evening news.

They sit back and rake in the kick backs, bribes, and go out and confiscate people's property while Pablo Escobar builds and empire is S. America. Then they ask June and Ward to allow them to raise taxes and hire more agents, and of course the Cleavers just about pee thier pants on the way to the ballot box (after stopping off at the liquor store for more Tanqurey and olives to celebrate their good work on behalf of the children). It's brilliant!

[GeronL]

Its nuts.

The courts have upheld this as reasonable in fighting the war on drugs

Then the courts need to be changed.

[John Jorsett]

The way it works is that the money is arrested, not the person. Money has no rights under the law, so it can't be given due process.

If that's how it works, I don't see why the cops aren't 'arresting' everything from my house to my penny loafers. Pretty much anything I own "could have" been used in drug trafficking. To get it back, all I'd have to do is prove that it wasn't. What's that take, a few years and thousands of dollars (assuming I have any, after the cops 'arrest' my bank accounts)? Sounds like a sweet deal for solving a city's budget shortfall.

[supercat]

The way it works is that the money is arrested, not the person. Money has no rights under the law, so it can't be given due process.

Any judge who buys that logic is at best a thief.

Was this person deprived of property? Yes. Did this person receive due process of law? No. Since the person was deprived of property, such taking to be lawful must be the result of due process.

Too bad there's no way all the thieves in government will ever be punished.