Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture

Washington Post ^ | July 25, 2014 | Radley Balko

[MadIsh32]

Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

[C. Edmund Wright]

good move...this is a cancer.....

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

OK, all of you who are constantly whingeing about “liberaltarians” and “Paultards” -— let’s see Cruz and Lee and Enzi and Inhofe sign on to sponsor this bill.

[grobdriver]

In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

Hmmm... didn't Holder recently (and uncharacteristically) terminate this kind of thievery?

[arthurus]

agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner.

Actually they can take property at will, simply say that they suspect said property to have been involved in unspecified something illegal. All cash is designated as "suspected of being involved in criminal activity" and can be seized at will. Volusia County Florida finances much of its LE with seizures of cash from random highway stops of newish Lincolns with Yankee tags. Some New Yorkers still put all their assets into cash then drive down to Florida to buy a Condo to retire.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Hmmm... didn't Holder recently (and uncharacteristically) terminate this kind of thievery?

So it was said, but with Holder, you need to know the rest of the story. They may just have varied the percentages of the take between state and federal groups, or made a small dent in it. A real law would be MUCH better.

I wonder if Obama would veto it.

[Beagle8U]

Rand Paul is still a Libtardian moron, even if he does something right once in awhile.

[henkster]

I did not read the article because

1) It’s in the Compost and I refuse to read that rag, and

2) I’m a FReeper

But, having said that, there are some important changes that need to be made in asset forfeiture laws, some of which may be in the proposed legislation:

1) No property may be forfeited without the criminal conviction of the legal owner of the property;

2) Property seized and returned to the owner, not having been subject to forfeiture, must also be accompanied by payment to the owner of costs of depreciation and/or interest by the government as a result of their taking of the property;

3) 100% of the proceeds of any forfeiture must be placed in the state or federal general fund; local agencies cannot use this as a means of “funding” their operations. And that includes the attorney’s fees in prosecuting these actions. (In most states, the prosecutor does not do forfeiture actions. They contract it to private attorneys, who use the “costs of collection” as a means of lining their pockets.)

There are times that forfeiture is appropriate, but these would give incentives to use it properly.

[thackney]

Why did you post a 6 month old article with today’s date?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

A good law. Seizure laws are simply unjust, plus lead to police corruption. Sequestering suspected property would be acceptable as long as it was returned upon acquittal. In addition, the state must prove the property was used in committing a crime.

[baltimorepoet]

Due process apparently is not considered important. I’d love to know how a direct violation of the Bill of Rights is legal.

Its not even an interpretation of “due process”, its an outright violation.

Whoever first proposed forfeiture without due process should have been assassinated. And whoever proposed it second, also should have been assassinated.

[arthurus]

The USSC blessed it. The USSC is the Constitution so long as the Congress and the States accept what it says as Holy Writ.

[baltimorepoet]

I would argue that in clear cases where the Constitution is directly being violated, that the Supreme Court has no authority to “interpret”.

If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that it is not a violation of the Constitution for the President to round up 3-year olds, and have them chopped up with machetes on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I would not consider that the law of the land.

[reed13k]

No he just said the locals couldn’t participate in the fed program - no impact to the local programs, or the feds executing the fed program - trying to get the feds hands on more of the pie is all.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Good its unconstitutional and I have opposed it for 25 years or more. It should have been stopped a long time ago.

[arthurus]

It would not be the legitimate “law of the land.” However, it would be the effective law of the land. Congress could take on the USSC. It has the right and duty to define what areas the court can rule on. The Congress can actually remove a subject from the purview of the Court. The Court’s right to pass on the Constitutionality of a thing as a final solution is a power the Court arrogated to itself without Constitutional authority.

[Ken H]

Congress is the one who passed the law and the Executive enforces it. They are the bad actors.

The Judiciary has shirked its duty to the Constitution by not stopping the bad actors.

[GeronL]

do not reform it, outlaw it