You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Forfeiture Laws and police funding
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
r. anderson, they should perhaps be able to seize cars of drunks, they just shouldn't be able to do it prior to court proceedings. Any property that's not illegal (and there shouldn't be any of that, but unfortunately there is) should not be seized as a result of its owner or bearer comitting other crimes.
Impounding a vehicle when all potential drivers are unavailable due to being arrested is a separate, unrelated issue; it is not a seizure in the same sense, and it's quite logical and necessary.
Group9, what are you asking Rich for, a case number? Lower court decisions are not really citable; even if you got party names and a case number, what would you do, go to Deleware and look it up in the case records?
Impounding a vehicle when all potential drivers are unavailable due to being arrested is a separate, unrelated issue; it is not a seizure in the same sense, and it's quite logical and necessary.
Group9, what are you asking Rich for, a case number? Lower court decisions are not really citable; even if you got party names and a case number, what would you do, go to Deleware and look it up in the case records?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Excuse me?How about a case cite, then?
Don't have one for you....just my name, my rep and my word.
You're quite welcome to doubt any of those.
Rich
randersonabq
New member
due process
Seizing of cars, after the due process of a trial, is entirely appropriate; it is not the nature of the punishment that I disagree with but the manner of doing it. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was devised to protect the people from the government.
The Founding Fathers had seen the British government's abuse of power prior to the Revolution, the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and designed the Constitution as a safe route between these two evils.
Seizing of cars, after the due process of a trial, is entirely appropriate; it is not the nature of the punishment that I disagree with but the manner of doing it. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was devised to protect the people from the government.
The Founding Fathers had seen the British government's abuse of power prior to the Revolution, the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and designed the Constitution as a safe route between these two evils.
Alan,
Go read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Long but very interesting.
Rich,
I think you need a different 'mule' to carry the cash for your purchases in real estate. Assuming you ever get back to that. Or carry it yourself. I feel for you. But that is how and where our government is right now.
TO THE REST.
We allow to have happen to us WHAT we want to have happen to us. Kind of like, IF YOU don't want bad things happen to you, you go out of your way to make sure that it does not. Don't go to the 'bad' part of town. Don't become a criminal. Don't become a politician (oh, I'm starting to repeat myself).
So, as long as we sit idly by and allow LE, whomever to take advantage of us, we 'get the law enforcement, government, whatever' that we deserve.
We are heading down a dark road that leads to no good. At some point, IF WE LIVE LONG ENOUGH (hey, I'm 52) then we will reach a point where 'resistance by force' will be all that's left. Scary if you think about it.
Go read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Long but very interesting.
Rich,
I think you need a different 'mule' to carry the cash for your purchases in real estate. Assuming you ever get back to that. Or carry it yourself. I feel for you. But that is how and where our government is right now.
TO THE REST.
We allow to have happen to us WHAT we want to have happen to us. Kind of like, IF YOU don't want bad things happen to you, you go out of your way to make sure that it does not. Don't go to the 'bad' part of town. Don't become a criminal. Don't become a politician (oh, I'm starting to repeat myself).
So, as long as we sit idly by and allow LE, whomever to take advantage of us, we 'get the law enforcement, government, whatever' that we deserve.
We are heading down a dark road that leads to no good. At some point, IF WE LIVE LONG ENOUGH (hey, I'm 52) then we will reach a point where 'resistance by force' will be all that's left. Scary if you think about it.
See also this thread. And this one. And this one.
All are about the same issue: like the use of tax power to grab regulatory and police powers at the federal level, and like the use of commerce clause power to do the same thing, this bit of drug war banditry is now spreading over to affect our firearms rights.
Civil asset forfeiture has been used since the beginning in our country to collect debts and taxes. The standard of proof if I say you owe me money, and you say you do not, is "whose story is more likely to be true?"
MORE likely. That's not a criminal law standard. Use of asset forfeiture to punish crimes amounts to lowering the burden of proof for CRIMES, not debts, but CRIMES. The fiction that it's all about "guilty" property is just nonsense. Property can't commit crimes, and property can't be punished, only owners can be punished. The property would not be "guilty" if someone did not commit a crime. So prove the crime. Under CRIMINAL law standards.
All are about the same issue: like the use of tax power to grab regulatory and police powers at the federal level, and like the use of commerce clause power to do the same thing, this bit of drug war banditry is now spreading over to affect our firearms rights.
Civil asset forfeiture has been used since the beginning in our country to collect debts and taxes. The standard of proof if I say you owe me money, and you say you do not, is "whose story is more likely to be true?"
MORE likely. That's not a criminal law standard. Use of asset forfeiture to punish crimes amounts to lowering the burden of proof for CRIMES, not debts, but CRIMES. The fiction that it's all about "guilty" property is just nonsense. Property can't commit crimes, and property can't be punished, only owners can be punished. The property would not be "guilty" if someone did not commit a crime. So prove the crime. Under CRIMINAL law standards.
Last edited:
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Vapidly self indulgent novel.
YMMV.
Rich
YMMV.
Rich
Spotted Owl
New member
This is bull****. This is like telling women that wearing "sexy" clothes is an invitation for rape.We allow to have happen to us WHAT we want to have happen to us. Kind of like, IF YOU don't want bad things happen to you, you go out of your way to make sure that it does not.
How about a case cite, then?
If it is examples you are seeking, here are a few sources:
http://www.libertarianworld.com/Property-Seizure-Rights.html
http://reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/000710/archive_015247_2.htm
From the first of those:
Professor Claudio Riedi noted in 1992 in the University of Miami Law Review, "Frequently, the government can meet its burden of proof by simply qualifying one of its detectives as an expert, who then testifies that a particular way of bundling money is typical for drug dealers. Standing alone, such testimony may be enough for a showing of probable cause, and may therefore entitle the government to forfeiture. In contrast, an innocent owner must adduce massive evidence to prove her case."[46]
The Orlando Sentinel noted, "Deputies routinely said bills in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 were suspicious because they are typical of what dealers carry. But that leaves few alternatives for others."[47]
They don't have to have residue on the bills. The bills just have to be ones or fives or tens or twenties or fifties or hundreds.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
I liked this one better:
No person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
-- 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution