Posted on 12/05/2018 9:36:47 AM PST by NobleFree
I feel like as much of a “law and order” type as most people, but these “civil seizures” are often unfair and actually seem like a form of theft.
Here in Texas, getting Abbott to reign in civil forfeiture is like attempting to get Pam Anderson to condemn excessive plastic surgery.
They're absolutely theft under color of law; if the property was involved in a crime, bring criminal charges against the owner.
If a person has been convicted in a court of law, then I’m OK with a seizure of relevant property. Deal drugs out of your car, lose your car. Deal drugs out of your house, lose your house.
But too often these seizure occur without any court ruling. Then it is - as you said - theft. The Supreme Court must fix this.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, pay the fine, or have your stuff seized. All punishments are based on inflicting some form of pain through deprivation of freedom, money, or other things of value. I’ve never had a problem with civil seizure, especially in drug cases where everyone knows in the vast majority of cases the money used to buy that fancy hoopty didn’t come from dad’s life insurance policy.
LOL! Politicians would generally rather fatten the till their hands and their cronies' are in.
But this guy was a smack dealer and paid forty two large for a Land Rover. What a stereotype. Let the govt keep the SUV and put it to use in undercover operations. Across the seas to the west, Duterte would have had the perp killed and seized his property anyway.
These property seizures by government violate the Constitution from multiple perspectives; thus, because they violate the “law of the land” they are illegal and un-Constitutional.
What crime? Civil asset forfeiture by definition involves no criminal charge.
I prefer the Founders' America - maybe you should consider relocation to a land more to your liking.
” ... and actually seem like a form of theft. “
... seem ?
Overturn civil forfeiture and Kelo in one fell swoop.
Convict drug dealers for dealing. Sentence them to long sentences.
But don’t make that an occasion for government theft.
I’m not thinking about one particular case. My concern is these seizures of property that go on for months or years even when there has been no conviction. If the state cannot convict you of a crime in that amount of time, then they should return the property, as they have had plenty of time for forensic examination and documentation of the property. Remember, the suspect is still presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I would agree about don’t do the crime but civil forfeiture can be used against you simply because you have a large amount of cash on you and no mean s to account for it. People who travel with cash for a particular legal business are very susceptible.
The Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, in 1833, that the entire Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. It was obvious, before then, that some applied and some didn't.
The 1833 ruling was overturned in 1868 when the Fourteenth amendment was ratified, specifically to apply the Bill of Rights to state governments.
Then the Supreme court essentially nullified the Fourteenth amendment through various rulings, including U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), and Presser v. Illinois (1886).
It wasn't until the 1900's that the Supreme Court started, gradually and intermittently, to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, on a very limited basis.
Had a friend who was a “little tin god” type cop that loved the asset forfeiture provision in the law. He said it helped to supplement the PD department and it hurts the criminals. I reminded him of his oath to the US Constitution and that the Constitution’s 4th Amendment doesn’t allow confiscation of personal property of one not yet convicted of a crime. My challenge obviously offended him. His retort was; “the law says we can take their property based on suspicion and your not a cop so you don’t know who we have to deal with everyday. The people who lose their property are usually serious criminal scumbags who deserve to lose everything they have.” He’s retired now but his little tin god attitude hasn’t changed.
Kavanaugh chimed in,
“Isn’t it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?”
Anybody that lives in places like Mass know that the 2A NOT incorporated.
(or any place requiring some sort of state fiat license to purchase/ possess)
The worst is the cop that pulls someone over for whatever, riffles through the driver’s wallet, finds cash, and takes it, calling it “suspicious,” “possibly involved in drugs,” blah, blah, blah.
Pure unadulterated theft.
How do you tell the cops from the robbers?
The cops have badges.
This travesty is long overdue to be ended.
“All punishments are based on inflicting some form of pain through deprivation of freedom, money, or other things of value. I’ve never had a problem with civil seizure, especially in drug cases where everyone knows in the vast majority of cases the money used to buy that fancy hoopty didn’t come from dad’s life insurance policy.”
Seizure that is not the result of due process is unconstitutional.
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.