Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 09/08/2009 1:08:57 PM PDT by secretagent
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alvarez v. Smith, a challenge to the state of Illinois' Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA). (Disclosure: the Reason Foundation, publisher of Reason.com, joined in an amicus brief in the case.) The six petitioners in Alvarez each had property seized by police who suspected the property had been involved in a drug crime. Three had their cars seized, three had cash taken. None of the six were served with a warrant, none of the six were charged with the crime. All perfectly legal, at least until now.
...(snip)...
In sum, we have a law that allows the state to seize someone's car without a warrant on the grounds that the car may have been connected to drug activity. Even if he's innocent, the car's owner may have to wait six months before he's even granted a hearing, and more than a year before the state returns his property.
...(snip)...
Unfortunately, the best outcome from Alvarez is likely to be little more than a requirement that states grant a bare-bones hearing in forfeiture cases within a reasonable amount of time—a marginal improvement. At worst, the Court will uphold the state's power to hold seized property essentially indefinitely, and other states will see yet another odious opportunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
End the damn “war”.
Exactly.
Abuses like this are not random, statistically small or aberrations.
Soon we will be arrested for possession of CASH!
“Prove it’s yours.”
I was once told by a cop that they weren’t actually seizing cash, they were just “Holding it for you.”
Cops are addicted to the war on drugs.
Damn right!
I can’t believe this law hasn’t been tossed out by now under the 4th Amendment.
” Unfortunately, the best outcome from Alvarez is likely to be little more than a requirement that states grant a bare-bones hearing in forfeiture cases within a reasonable amount of time—a marginal improvement. “
In an ideal world, the Supremes would declare all ‘forfeiture without due process’ laws to be unconstitutional...
Then, the tens(hundreds?)-of-thousands of people illegally deprived of property will claim compensation at fair-market-value - bankrupting several states, and forcing the Fed money presses to work overtime....
Arresting people gets into all that nasty reading of rights and just cause. It is much easier to just take the cash and claim it was used for drugs.
Police departments in some areas are nothing more than legalized theft operations. Whether it is by the speed trap or just the outright armed robbery of civil forfeiture, there are just some areas you shouldn't go through.
In my opinion, property should not be taken unless the owner was convicted and the property was proved to be either the fruit of the crime or the instrument of the crime. If there is a fine, it should be in the legally permitted dollar amount and should not be tied to any specific piece of property. Also, it should be put into the government's general fund so the police don't have any incentive to boost their budget by boosting civil forfeitures.
It looks like this lawsuit isn't even about due process. Only the fact that due process is too slow.
RICO! The legalized theft of personal property by our “friends and servants” in government.
The courts used incredibly tortured and corrupt language to support "asset forfeiture."
The police don't need to charge you, if they think that the property MIGHT have come from illegal activity. Instead, they "arrest" the property. Since the property isn't a person, it has no rights. Therefore, they can take your property for pretty much any reason, and YOU have to prove that you came by it "legitamately," and pay for the chance to do so.
It's so WRONG it is enough to make one's head spin. But it's "legal."
Mark
And it's corrupting... There was a case in CA where the owner of property had some pot plants growing on the property. There was no evidence that it was cultivated, just growing wild. When the sheriff dept came to seize the property, he objected, and they killed him.
The state of MO had to sue to KCPD because they were breaking state law when doing drug busts. According to state law, the state gets any property seized during a drug bust. But when the DEA does a drug bust, they share the booty with any local lae enforcement agencies involved. So the KCPD would do everything, right up to the bust, then call in the DEA to actually conduct the bust, "stealing" the "booty" from the state.
Mark
I think you’re referring to the dentist (Scott) whom the police targeted simply because of the value of his property (over $2 million). They shot him at the top of the stairs after they “no knocked” his home.
It’s made the police partners with the drug dealers and money men.
But no cop gets my cash unless they arrest me.People who hand it over voluntarily are crazier than a bag of hammers.
They tried it at a border crossing one time, thinking they could nab me for having an amount over the exemption. I was 100 bucks short ( I had counted it), and I would not allow them to have it to count without first either arresting me or alternatively filling out paper work and having it counted in my presence and that of one other officer.
Give me your money so I can take it inside and count it? Yeah right!
Ron Paul right again. He is the only Republican that can take them down.
They're legislated.
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.