Civil asset forfeiture is something that needs to be ended. Permanently. Hopefully Trump will overrule Sessions on this unjust crap.
bttt
I see nothing wrong with it so long as all the facts are in before it occurs. If, for example, when (and only when) the motel owner is proved to be involved with the crime should he lose his business. To do so beforehand is clearly a violation of his protections against search and seizure.
“Hopefully Trump will overrule Sessions on this unjust crap.”
One thing that concerns me is we are building up such high hopes that Trump will resolve thirty years of social and economic commie creep, instantly, that no matter how well he performs we will inevitably be disappointed in the lack of progress on our individual issues.
Agreed. Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination.
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.
I dont think trump is for civil asset forfeiture. He wont let sessions do jack on this.
it has nothing to do with Sessions. Repeal or continuance will not be his business. Those here that raise the issue are just plain foolish
I agree.
Hello, due process.