Asset seizure run Amok

It's been common, for at least 50 years, for firearms to be seized during certain federal game law violations...prior to conviction. I suppose the seized property has to be returned if the suspects are found innocent, which is rare.

I have absolutely no sympathy for drug users or drug dealers...parasites, all, and not worthy of life.
 
See any difference between "held pending the outcome of a trial" and "property of the seizing agency, regardless of whether there is ever a trial"?
 
I've read more than one account of people driving down the highway to a car auction or some such with considerable cash on them.

Stopped for traffic infraction, car searched and money seized in asset forfeiture -- ill-gotten gains and so on.

There may have been litigation that resulted in removal of the 10% bond required to fight for the money back.

But ever without that bond, with the cost of attorney, travel, etc, one can kiss their money good-by.


Sort of gives a new meaning to "highway robbery", doesn't it?




Good thread for this time of year with April 15th (really April 17th, this year) coming up.



matis
 
"I have absolutely no sympathy for drug users or drug dealers...parasites, all, and not worthy of life."


Rivers, I don't like drug dealers either. But if drugs were legal like alcohol and tobacco, then there would be no drug dealers, nor all the crime, violent and otherwise, not 60% of our prison population.

Why do you think prohibition was repealed?

And asset forfeiture (legal stealing by the government in my opinion), if OK for drug dealers, becomes OK for you and me. And it is done against innocent people.

I saw an internal memo that made it's way public of the San Francisco police chief complaining to his troops that asset forfeiture was not being done with sufficient enthusiasm and the department would therefore not have sufficient funds. (Seizing agency gets a percentage of assets seized. Can you imagine a more corrupting policy?)

I don't know of a place I'd rather live. But this sure ain't your grandfather's America, anymore, is it?



matis
 
when asset forfiture becomes a means of raising revenue with the burden of proof being put on the owner to get his assets back.....its wrong. The law says innocent until proven guilty. We fought a revolution in this nation because of taxation without representation. asset forfiture for the sake of raising revenues for the government has that same aroma.....
 
I suppose the seized property has to be returned if the suspects are found innocent, which is rare.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's the sticking point. We really don't know, since so few are ever actually charged...
 
when asset forfiture becomes a means of raising revenue with the burden of proof being put on the owner to get his assets back.....its wrong.
Click to expand...

It became that 20 years ago, as well as a means of general intimidation and a stepping stone on the way to totalitarianism.
 
I agree 100% that seizures shouldn't be made for revenue raising purposes. Don't agree that drugs should be legal. I find that the particular segment of the population that's in prison due to drug charges are serving society better in prison than if they were living their worthless, parasitic lives amongst us.

I meant that those charged with drug violations are rarely found innocent, because they're rarely innocent.
 
Time to bring out the definitions... Again.

Mallum in se - Mala In Se

[Latin, Wrongs in themselves] Acts morally wrong; offenses against conscience.

In criminal law, crimes are categorized as either mala in se or mala prohibita, a term that describes conduct that is specifically forbidden by laws. Although the distinction between the two classifications is not always clear, crimes mala in se are usually common-law crimes or those dangerous to life or limb.

Battery, rape, murder and grand larceny or petit larceny are examples of offenses that courts have held to be mala in se.

Mallum prohibitum - Mala Prohibita

[Latin, Wrongs prohibited.] A term used to describe conduct that is prohibited by laws, although not inherently evil.

Courts commonly classify statutory crimes as mala prohibita. This, however, is not a fixed rule since not all statutory crimes are classified as such.

Examples of mala prohibita include public intoxication and carrying a concealed weapon.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying Rivers is that smoking a joint is the equivalent of Rape?

Just want everyone to be clear on what you consider a "crime" punishable by imprisonment.
 
I meant that those charged with drug violations are rarely found innocent, because they're rarely innocent.
Click to expand...

The problem with asset forfeiture is not assets seized from convicted criminals, but rather the seizing of property without charging the owner of it with any crime.

Law enforcement can seize the cash in your pocket if they have reason to believe that the money was involved in an illegal narcotics transaction. Burden of proof on their part is not required because they're charging the money with a crime, not the bearer. If you go to the gun show with $10,000 in your pocket because you want to look for that rare Steyr AUG, and law enforcement pulls you over for a busted taillight and subsequently confiscates your ten grand, you have no recourse at all to prevent the seizure of your money. The burden of proof that the money is not drug money is on you, which means you may see your money back in a year and a half if you have the extra change and patience to hire a lawyer, and you can document exactly how and where you got that cash.

Look up "asset forfeiture abuse" and read some of the cases where regular folks had their cash and assets confiscated without ever having been charged with a crime, and tell me that people falling victim to revenue-generating asset forfeiture policies are "rarely ever innocent".
 
I meant that those charged with drug violations are rarely found innocent, because they're rarely innocent.
Click to expand...
Do not confuse aquittal with innocence and conviction with guilt. Just because someone is convicted of a crime does not mean they are guilty of commiting any immoral act against another human being.
 
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Pretty much sums it up.
 
Something stinks about this case, and yes it might be very stupid government lawyers. Considering that the dentist could have would up in a position that would cost him his license to practise dentistry for do this procedure (over patients objections), I can't imagene a dentist being willing to do this for the government.
 
Forfeiture went amok the instant it was created, and went irrevocably amok the instant that the proceeds of the seized items went to the LEOAs seizing them, rather than the general government coffers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top