Posted on 01/03/2017 1:01:46 PM PST by reaganaut1
By a very large measure, Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture. They think that it is wrong for the government to take property from someone who has not been convicted of any crime. The most recent evidence showing that is found in a recent Cato Institute survey on public attitudes toward the police and in it, 84 percent said they oppose allowing the police to seize a person’s property on mere suspicion that he may have been involved in crime.
Unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump’s choice for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, is among that small minority of Americans who reflexively support civil asset forfeiture because it supposedly helps fight crime. At least, those were his thoughts during a Judiciary Committee hearing on civil asset forfeiture in May 2015.
The committee had listened to testimony from Russ Caswell of Tewksbury, MA. He explained how his family-owned motel was seized by federal and local officials because some of his customers had violated drug laws while in the rooms they had rented. That was sufficient grounds for the seizure, which would have netted the cooperating agencies (the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Tewksbury Police) roughly $2 million after selling the property. Caswell would have lost nearly his entire wealth merely because of criminal activity he did not know about occurred on his property.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“But ONLY upon conviction.”
Can’t say that LOUD enough, or often enough.
Anything else is theft.
Maybe you can ask Hillary who she’d recommend for AG.....
I do not think people who make profits off of the sale of narcotics should be able to keep them, nor do I think that total confiscation before due process has been carried out is fair either. Perhaps the freezing of a percentage of the assets might be in order as an option.
I certainly do not think someone who owns a business should be held liable unless they can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the business owner was reaping profits from the narcotics that were found on his establishment. What I am trying to say here is that the case of the motel owner who had no knowledge of what was transpiring in the rented room, should be held culpable.
Civil forfeiture is perfectly fine for certain crimes. As long as it occurs AFTER a successful prosecution.
Hopefully Trump will move to reinstate in full the Bill of Rights in every state of the US, no exceptions.
Since the Founding Fathers of MY country, the USA, sternly enforced civil asset forfeiture laws I fully support Sessions’ endorsement of them.
(But not their growing abusiveness which is apparent. AFAIK he doesn’t support abuse of the process either.}
Hopefully our side will grill him on this issue. Asset forfeiture is nothing more than state theft. The notion that the state can take money on your person because they deem it “too much” so it must be drug money is disgusting. I don’t see too much hope that they will though because the Republicans were too busy stampeding each other to sponsor the legislation allowing asset forfeiture. If you had questions about it you were in favor of kids doing heroin.
Thank you.
They think that it is wrong for the government to take property from someone.
When the supreme court allows emanate domain guess what follows.
Yeah, I see a problem. 84 percent of Americans are against it and it is fundamentally un constitutional but the Elites do it any way.
You nailed it! Exactly right.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is legalized theft, and it is WRONG. I’ve seen it happen, and the “property” is assumed guilty, until a gaggle of lawyers proves otherwise, and that often takes years. This generally doesn’t happen to rich people; it happens to people who don’t have the financial ability to hire lawyers and fight, and these local cops/DAs know this.
Founding Father: You don’t even have to “run afoul” of the law. Not in the least, to have your property seized. You can get pulled over for a minor traffic violation, that you MIGHT NOT EVEN have committed, and have your property seized. It is very prevalent in small communities who set speed traps and rely on this kind of thing to keep their budgets afloat, not to mention keeping themselves in military equipment and new cars.
I’m still not sure to what extent Sessions supports civil forfeitures and if he’s actually claiming law enforcement should seize property any time it wants for no valid reason without due process, but he’s not the supreme authority over civil forfeiture issues. I would be more concerned with how Trump’s judicial and SCOTUS nominees view the issue. And it’s also the responsibility of Congress to reaffirm the 5th amendment through legislation as well as the states.
I dont think trump is for civil asset forfeiture. He wont let sessions do jack on this.
Session is the man. Go Trump! Go Sessions!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May your home, or property, be the next one siezed.
Are you one of the types who profits from this type of activity? Sounds like it.
“All your everything are belong to us” -Government
Many years ago, I read:
Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994)
by James Bovard.
He is from the libertarian side of the right. I still remember one story he told. A man had a very expensive, wooden speed boat. This same kind of boat (cigar boat?) was used by drug dealers. This was in Florida.
Authorities (DEA?, Coast Guard?) boarded his boat, took axes to it to see if their were any drugs in hollow panels of the boat. (My rudimentary understanding is that hollow panels increase buoyancy). They pretty much demolished his very expensive boat. They did not find any drugs.
He asked for compensation. He sued for compensation. Lawyers are expensive. I don’t think the suit had been resolved at the time the book was published.
Bovard was of the “we lost the war on drugs, let’s not lose our freedom too” school of thought. I’m not sure I buy that fully, but I do understand the argument. Anyway, he writes a hard-hitting book (all items picked from one side of the ledger).
I wouldn’t be surprised if most asset forfeiture are about drug ALLEGATIONS.
Personally, I couldn't possibly agree more with you. At issue is the proceeds from the criminal act could be gone by the time a civil procedure completes.
As with everything, our Government is all about getting our money & assets away from us .. no matter who we are .. by any means necessary. Follow the money.
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.