I don’t see calling theft as theft is “name-calling”
Civil Asset forfeiture in any case except after conviction for a felony is wrong.
If you can possibly refute that in any way I’ll be utterly amazed, but please go ahead and try.
I’m saying this: some things are *wrong*, always and in any circumstances, and the people who believe otherwise are evil. If you have facts or experiences to counter this, in other words circumstances in which the State taking the property of a citizen without trial by the threat of force without recourse to a jury, please post them
I think you need to go back and re-read your post #36, I am assuming your POS comment was directed towards??
OK, I don’t know what your background is and I will try and see if I can explain how the system works. The biggest problem with your premise is it doesn’t take into account the “straw-owner” concept. Using a drug dealer as an example, most drug dealers do not put things in their name. Whether it’s a car, house, property, what-have-you. They use a third-party to avoid losing the property.
This is why dealers use rental cars to have mules move drugs from point A to point B. They know rental cars will not be seized so they are not out anything.
So the drug dealer is stopped driving his Mercedes. The dealer has been seen driving the car on multiple occasions and he claims the car is actually owned by person B.
The car is seized pending forfeiture because there is a track record of only the drug dealer being seen in the vehicle.
At this point, the forfeiture investigation looks at: Who is the car titled to? How was the car paid for and by whom? Who has physical control of the car? Has the titled owner ever been seen driving the car? Has the titled owner paid for repairs or fuel for the vehicle? Does the titled owner have the resources to pay cash for the car?
In other words, building a case to show the titled owner is a straw-man and the drug dealer is the true owner of the vehicle by virtue of use and possession.
The case is then filed against the CAR. The car is considered proceeds or facilitation. It was either purchased by illegally gained money or it was used in the transaction of the drug dealers business. There are no charges against the titled “owner” of the vehicle because he really isn’t the owner.
So you can’t get a felony conviction against a straw-owner.
Many times, property/cash is returned promptly to an individual because the investigation shows there is no criminal conduct. A lot of times, the cash is just abandoned by the dealer as the cost of doing business.
In the example cited, it appears the S/O was running a scam stealing money from casino winners under the guise of “forfeiture”. It wasn’t. It was theft and should be called out. But on the same token, don’t paint everything with the same broad brush.
That’s why I said forfeiture is one of the least understood aspects of policing.