Property directly resulting from, or that can be traced to, an illegal activity. Once a crime is identified, the government may seize any property flowing from the activity. In some cases, the government may seize property in lieu of provable criminal proceeds. Statutory innocent owner defenses provide a check on the seizure power, although this burden lies with the owner, not the government.
Bennis v. Michigan 517 U.S. 1163 (1996)
What I said was there should be no asset forfeiture apart from conviction etc.
Should.
There’s also the no excessive fines aspect from the Constitution.
Not that that old scrap of paper means much post FDR.
There is a reason that the Constitution was written down in the clear, non-legalese language commonly used during the time it was drafted. It was written as a document that anyone could read and understand clearly so that they could defend themselves from the unconstitutional acts of government abuse of power.
The “penumbras and emanations” that the courts have invented are nothing but fantasies, phantoms, and outright lies.
That's depressing.
It is robbery. How does this idiot's cash relate to the "crime" of not wearing a seat belt? They're not interrelated and taking the man's sh!+ under that statute is aggravated robbery, plain and simple.
That says nothing.
“Statutory innocent owner defenses provide a check on the seizure power, although this burden lies with the owner, not the government.”
That is what is entirely wrong about such seizures. The burden of proof concerning the property SHOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW and be no less necessary, as far as seizures, as is the burden of proof about a crime itself. A mere accusation and arrest for a “crime” does not constitute the end-definition that an individual committed a crime because no court process has PROVED the individual guilty. The property cannot stand PROVEN guilty ahead of the individual.
The Supreme Court precedents permitting these seizures should be overturned. The property should not be able to be considered “guilty” by mere police accusation alone. It must require proof of that guilt, which must follow, not precede, conviction of the individual in court.
The seizure laws as they are now should be scrapped.
Without a conviction of an individual, their property should not be allowed to become the possession of the arresting agency or the prosecutors, in any fashion. The most they should be able to do - with strict terms of how any property qualifies - is to place the property in a custodian account held by a court, the same court where the individual will be tried, if they are tried.
If the individual is released without conviction, with or without a trial, the court should be required to immediately release their property. The law should not require the individual in that case to prove again anything, or to have to request return of the property. The request, by law, should be required to be made by the arresting agency, if there was no trial, or the prosecutors if there was. They should be liable for a civil suit and damages if they fail to make those requests.