[ellery]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? It's become clear that the state doesn't like to relinquish what it's seized even if people are found not guilty. Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed? Please?

[pierrem15]

You got my vote. The whole 'civil forfeiture' code is a Constitutional nightmare and does little more than turn police officers into thieves.

[flashbunny]

No, we can't, because some here will just call anyone who opposes the erosion of constitutional rights in the war on drugs 'loserdopians' or 'potheads' or other such idiotic names. Why? Because it's easier than arguing the facts that go against your supposed support for the constitution.

The WOD is now only about money and power my friends - money and power. And I'm not talking about the drug dealers, either.

[robertpaulsen]

"for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime"

Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict?

[Grut]

Can we as conservatives...

The problem is, some 'conservatives' are insecure power junkies who get proxy fulfillment from the abuse of state power. Until these statists are chucked out of the movement, 'conservativism' will never be coherent.

[backhoe]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? It's become clear that the state doesn't like to relinquish what it's seized even if people are found not guilty. Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed?

Yes- I've always believed this.

[jocon307]

OK, I agree with you anyway. Henry Hyde was doing some good stuff against these abuses a while ago. A disgrace' and in NY they started doing it with cars and DUI, to which, as I'm sure many folks are aware, there is no defense. And even Ron Kuby supported this. Raising the issue, what's a left-wing for?

[muggs]

I really think you are asking way too much from some of the conseratives here.

[EggsAckley]

I can, most certainly. The seizure scam is a real black eye to the US. Total rip-off. And totally unconstitutional, I'm sure.

It's time to end this madness.

[Ben Chad]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime?

Non-drug-user bump

[CindyDawg]

No, I just can't agree. The state shouldn't be able to seize anything, unless, it can be proved that property was purchased with drug money and only a jury should decide this. Any seizures should only be done after a jury trial and the money should never go in to the department that has a vested interest in the arrest. I just got my CCW license and the instructor (a cop) said jokingly, your gun can be taken by the police for any reason so yall buy good, expensive ones. Where is this going to stop? Look at seatbelts. It used to be for safety but it's a money maker now too. What's next? Our cars?

[1ofmanyfree]

"Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? It's become clear that the state doesn't like to relinquish what it's seized even if people are found not guilty. Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed? Please?"

Quite correct and I for one agree.

(though I fully expect to be flamed by the wod swallowers)

[dljordan]

What's the big deal? You don't own the property anyway, you just rent it from the State on a yearly basis. If you don't pay the rent you're outa there. If you resist you're a tax-evading, right-wing, militia nut-case and get burned alive.

[DannyTN]

Agreed. A guilty verdict should be required.

[skinkinthegrass]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime?

Yes, We can.

Rem: The Scott incident in Kali., Where the EO, shot and killed, Mr. Scott, in a "No-Knot" drug Raid. During the wrongful death civil suit, it appears the drug raid was a ruse/gambit, the civil government really wanted his land for a park...the widow won the suit, loss the the farm, due to legal costs/bills and taxes.

[dc27]

Legacy of Edwin Meese.

[CDHart]

"Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed? Please?"

Yes, no problem here. There used to be a page in USA Today once a month listing all the properties that the ATF and FBI had seized. And there does not have to be a conviction. Just the charge of some criminal act, and they can take pretty much whatever they want. If there is a verdict of innocence, it doesn't do much good, because many times the property has been sold already. I'm sure the founding fathers are weary of spinning in their graves.

Carolyn

[Lurking Libertarian]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? It's become clear that the state doesn't like to relinquish what it's seized even if people are found not guilty. Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed? Please?

The Founding Fathers (the 1st Congress, seated in 1789, which included James Madison and many other signers of the Constitution) passed the first forfeiture law. It was limited to violations of the admiralty and customs laws, but it did not require a criminal conviction. If customs agents found that your ship had been used to smuggle in goods without paying the duty-- even if the smuggling was done, without your knowledge, by someone else (for example, someone who had chartered your ship for one voyage-- they could forfeit the ship. The drug forfeiture laws (enacted in the 1970s and 80s) were based on these laws.