Posted on 02/13/2018 10:09:35 AM PST by nickcarraway
First and foremost, civil asset forfeiture is a crime-fighting tool.
First bullet point - didn't take long to get to "it's a tool to use" formulation that actually means selective enforcement. It's a tool that may either be used or not at the discretion of the officer and the state he or she represents. What happened to due process here? Oh, we'll get to that...
Law enforcement and prosecutors can't go after property unless it can be shown it was used in a crime, was gained through criminal action or bought with the proceeds of a crime.
Well, that's a relief. "It can be shown" means due process, right? Uh, not exactly, because one of the changes they don't want is:
One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction.
So this due process - that pesky 5th Amendment again - doesn't mean a conviction in a trial, it means that the accuser needs to "demonstrate" to the judge that the forfeiture is related to a "crime" that hasn't been tried yet. Not only is the proper term for this "accusation" in plain English, but this is essentially "due process is whatever we say it is," and that's not going to cut it Constitutionally. But it gets better:
What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
WHAT? The "incentive" for someone doing a job is their salary and the respect one receives for doing a job well. If they have insufficient resources for this the place to obtain them is the state budget, not the pockets of anyone passing by. And it gets worse:
Even in cases in which the property owner doesn't contest the forfeiture, a judge must still sign off on it.
So what? A person has his or her property taken at the point of a gun as a function of an accusation, not a conviction, and must undergo an expensive and complicated legal process to hope to recover it that may or may not even be granted? Paid for how, by the money that's just been taken?
This is pure sophistry. The Constitution is clear. Law enforcement may not become a means of institutional and personal enrichment. I am astonished that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution could pen such nonsense, much less believe it.
The snag is just how is “criminality” adjudicated here. It seems to be enough to sue the objects, without convicting a person. That’s a legal fiction big enough to drive a truck through, yet it’s been accepted by the highest courts. Any fix will need to be legislative and/or constitutional.
Someone sold it to the USSC and that “ends it” like it “ended” the questions of permissibility of unlimited abortion and mandation of gay marriage.
How shall a different philosophy be sold? And if sold, how shall it be ensconced in law?
Absolute horse hillary
Does this mean businesses should pay the police to prevent crimes?
...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.
The USSC has only been able to avoid tossing this entire body of law out by carefully restricting what it is willing to consider regarding the matter. Congress has the ability to take it out of their scope (Article III, Section 2) if they continue to do so.
They should definitely "gut" pre-conviction civil asset forfeiture.
+1
And, more importantly than either of those, as a source of easy free money.
An accurate and coherent picture of the evils resulting from this kind of thing will need to be beheld by the American people at large, and they will have to care about it too.
The good Lord help us. Personally I think the whole idea of even using it to dampen down clandestine street drug trade has got bad problems. The interdiction rate is pretty dismal, about 10% for marijuana. Police may not even WANT to see people convicted that they can “tax” instead. If sending a lot of dealers to jail kills the golden goose for them, they won’t want that.
This is an exercise in building little private kingdoms in the name of looking like something is being done about a problem while not doing very much about it.
A free people never have to prove they are innocent.
What a pant load. This is all about protecting a rice bowl.
don’t gut it, abolish it. It’s tyranny pure and simple.
Amen.
For far too long in far too many places, “civil asset forfeiture” has been used as a political tool. Make an accusation and take everything.
This is abuse. Plain and simple.
And I neglected to say, your comment cracked me up.
Really, you should not give them anymore ideas.
We don’t want it to scream. We want it to gasp its last and just die.
Maybe a system based on plain truth and not pecuniary interest will damp crime down better, not worse.
That's just my gut feeling...
;-)
The most simple reform of civil asset forfeiture that will help get rid of a lot of the abuses is to transfer all proceeds to the state’s general fund. 100% of the proceeds must go to the general fund. No kickbacks of any kind can accrue to those in charge of enforcing the law. That would include the individual police departments, the cities, and courts.
Have you ever dealt with the IRS or state tax boards?
I probably shouldn’t give them any ideas. It might come to that.
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.