Posted on 07/12/2020 10:28:59 AM PDT by RandFan
The killing of George Floyd and the subsequent nationwide uproar has rightfully forced needed conversations about law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
While Congress has so far fumbled on working toward tangible, passable legislation, Sens. Rand Paul, R–Kentucky, Mike Lee, R–Utah, Mike Crapo, R–Idaho, and Angus King, I–Maine, have reintroduced legislation to limit the use of civil asset forfeiture.
Through the practice, law enforcement is able to seize cash and other assets from individuals suspected or accused of criminal activity without so much as a criminal conviction or even bringing criminal charges.
The practice of civil asset forfeiture in contemporary times has its roots in the War on Drugs, and is often defended on the grounds that it’s necessary to seize ill-gotten assets from drug lords.
But in reality, the practice often sweeps up either completely innocent people or those only peripherally related to criminal activity.
The Institute for Justice, for example, has noted cases like that of a New Jersey woman whose car was seized because her son, without her knowledge, used her car while selling marijuana.
In addition to the problem of empowering law enforcement to seize property in the name of fighting crime without even getting a criminal conviction, civil asset forfeiture skews the incentives of many police departments to prioritize enforcement in cases expected to yield seizure opportunities.
To address this, Paul’s Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act would eliminate financial incentives for local law enforcement agencies to participate in civil asset forfeiture in partnership with federal agencies by repealing “equitable sharing” between federal and state and local agencies of seizure revenues.
It would also raise the threshold for forfeiture by requiring “clear and convincing evidence” that a seized asset is linked to a crime, instead of the current “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
While we’d prefer that any civil asset forfeiture be banned outright, these are significant improvements over the status quo. Police agencies should always serve the interests of the public. Any incentive to police for profit should be eliminated.
yes yes!
civil asset forfeiture purports to authorize police and state agents to take (steal, in effect) private American citizens’ property ... (noting also that the victims of this terrible practice are almost always innocent under the law when the cops/agents steal their goodies, money, whatever)
this practice incentivizes honest police and any involved judiciary to become corrupt as Hell
we must end this awful practice now!
The beginning of this article starts on a falsehood. There was no need for a public discourse on police and race relationships. It was pure propaganda to take our president down.
When somebody starts an article stating the ridiculous, there is no reason to read any further.
I am sick of us giving in and having to read the first paragraph of every article by every limp-wristed Republican about how race relations and police abuse need to be talked about.
if you want to talk about civil Fortune then talk about it. Don’t bring this Floyd garbage into it
I think this is something the left and right can agree on to scrap it. Although the Establishment don’t want reform so it’s tough.
They won’t give up billions of loot easily .. we have discussed this before and remain pessimistic.
But at least we can advance the argument? Shrug.
Jeff Sessions will be mighty unhappy.
It’s an editorial by the editorial bard, not an article by a republican
That being said, I agree most freepers could do a better job excerpting things
Hopefully he’ll be gone for good soon..
It would also raise the threshold for forfeiture by requiring “clear and convincing evidence” that a seized asset is linked to a crime, instead of the current “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Outstanding!
Leftist editorial trying to protect Billions, perhaps Trillions, that will be seized from mostly leftist human traffickers.
The killing of George Floyd...
George Floyd Killed George Floyd-
What is a fatal dose of Fentanyl? The average death dose was 9.96 ng/mL
Floyd’s blood contained 11.0 ng/mL Fentanyl, plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl, 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine, and three other drugs
Also Note the extensive heart disease that Floyd had from the autopsy report:
II. Natural diseases
A. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe
B. Hypertensive heart disease
1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular
dilatation
2. Clinical history of hypertension
Note the finding of No life-threatening injuries:
III. No life-threatening injuries identified
A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal
structures
C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other
than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column
injuries, or visceral injuries
Notice the fatal dose of the opioid fentanyl in the toxicology report:
VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing
performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at
9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)
A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:
1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
2. Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
3. 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
4. Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL;
Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
6. Cotinine positive
7. Caffeine positive
So to you, seizing assets with no criminal charges ever filed is a conservative policy?
that will be seized from mostly leftist human traffickers.
Where's the evidence for that "mostly"?
Yes! Leverage this moment to eliminate REAL corruption, including police unions and other government unions.
I don’t think we should scrap it, we should modify it so it ONLY APPLIES to PUBLIC SERVANTS and it should be Mandatory for the State to Sieze their Assets upon being accused of Corruption
I am in LE. I do not care for civil asset forfeiture and would be ok with it being eliminated or totally reformed.
Glad to hear it ... the problem is those higher up will oppose any reforms to their cash cow.
What about no knock warrants?
“What about no knock warrants?”
I feel that they have their place, but it is outside what most people think of.
You ever serve a warrant on a MS-13 drug house with kidnap victims inside? They never seem to just open that door voluntarily... Who knows why. :)
There's more to it. Every day the Border Patrol and CBP seizes hundreds of vehicles used by drug and human smugglers.
Do we really want to just give their vehicles back. That will make their operational costs go way down.
That is criminal forfeiture, where the vehicle is seized as evidence of a crime someone is then pretty much immediately arrested for.
Civil forfeiture does not require charges to *ever* be filed. Let alone a conviction to be obtained.
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.