Posted on 11/28/2018 12:41:43 PM PST by Mariner
I-10 through certain gulf coast states has long had a reputation for police “window shopping” for nice out of state vehicles, pulling them over, allegedly finding drugs or sometimes merely a drug dog alerting, then seizing the vehicle, driving it, abusing it, and the owners have to pay an attorney and come in from out of state just to try to regain their property unjustly seized. We’re talking oftentimes elderly people with not a crime of any kind to their names. It’s got to stop. Allowing this has corrupted numerous police forces, they’ve turned into literal highway robbers.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is blatant theft under color of authority and a clear violation of 4th Amendment protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
It also directly violates provisions of the 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.
No conviction, trial, arrest, or even formal charges are needed for the police to steal anything of value from an ordinary citizen. Only an unsubstantiated claim by the police is required. Let the Asset "prove" that it is innocent.
Civil Asset Forfeiture should be eliminated.
If we had "Rule-of-Law", this practice would be eliminated. What we have is "Pretense-of-Law".
Free Republic should allow a commenter to edit his post within five minutes of its original submission.
Excellent news on 2 fronts:
1) The asset confiscation part of the War on (Some) Drugs will be severely curtailed. I’d love to see the ban on getting on an airplane with more than $10K in cash without declaring it voided also (not that I’d do it, but it is incredibly insulting), but I’m not going to hold my breath.
2) Gorsuch’s response on this issue is extremely heartening. This explicitly means that state laws that are more draconian on the gun issue will be more likely to be struck down. Can’t wait for bans on “high-capacity” magazines to be flushed down the crapper, to be immediately followed by the joyous gnashing of teeth and crying on the Left.
“If we had “Rule-of-Law”, this practice would be eliminated. “
How did you turn $400 worth of herion into “large quantities”?
Property rights should not be upended because of criminal activity. The court can convict him and fine him or even imprison him. If he needs the money to pay the fine then he can sell his property.
$400 of heroin would not merit a $40,000 fine.
Drugs should not be criminalized and adding asset forfeiture expands the power of the state too far. What other crimes do you believe merit asset forfeiture? OR do you just think it is for drug dealers?
“In this particular case,however,I have absolutely no problem with his $40K car being seized if he was,in fact,*convicted* of using it in the sale of $400 worth of heroin.”
That’s nonsense. What if he used an Uber? Should the Uber driver lose his/her car because of the passenger’s actions? I ask because that exact case has already occurred in the USA.
More to the point, too many people are being robbed by the police simply for legally carrying large amounts of cash. None of those seizures are right and I hope the Court cures this issue.
I think I read some time ago about the Scandinavians instituting fines based on ability to pay. Wealthy people were having no trouble paying fines and didn't bother obeying the laws. Sounds like a pretty slippery slope to me.
You want to fine this guy $40,000 and the next guy gets off with losing a 50 dollar pair of shoes?
“All limitations of Federal power in the Constitution should apply to the states.”
______________________
While I agree that all individual rights in the Bill of Rights should be applicable against the states the same as against the federal government, it simply is not correct to state that the U.S. Constitution places the same limitations on state governments as it does against the federal government.
For one thing, one of the Constitution’s great limitations on federal power is the fact that Congress may act only pursuant to its enumerated powers or implied powers. Such limitation applies only to the federal government, since states may act unless specifically forbidden from doing so by the Constitution.
And even within the Bill of Rights, there is one clause that was meant to limit the federal government that is totally inapplicable to state governments, although an activist U.S. Supreme Court showed its ignorance by incorporating it against the states. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...,”and it was adopted and ratified at a time in which most states had established churches. The reason why the Establishment Clause was adopted was to prevent the federal government from *de-establishing* a church that had been established by a state or, even worse, establishing a church for the entire United States. The Establishment Clause, therefore, does not declare an individual right, but a right of each state to decide for itself whether it will have an established church. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago and it is extremely unlikely that even this new conservative SCOTUS majority will reconsider precedents that incorporate the Establishment Clause against the states.
Oh I know what the REALITY is. But I can’t think of a single state that shouldn’t have the same limitations put on them; the closer to that ideal the better.
But excellent and well written post, thank you.
It’s interesting that both libs and conservatives hate Civil asset Forfeiture. You can’t find anyone supporting it anywhere who isn’t a member of a police organization. Just as much outrage and loathing of it on DU as here.
The problem with civil asset forfeiture goes beyond the issues in this case.
It is being used to cease assets when no conviction of any crime has taken place, and to require the innocent to go to court to get assests back when ceased in such cases. In some jurisdictions it is being used to fund police and state justice department programs, which because a corrupting influence - it’s right to do BECAUSE the jurisdictions involved want the money.
If the Uber driver was part of a conspiracy to distribute...that is,he/she was *convicted* of having known exactly what was happening yet continued to take him there...absolutely yes.
In Philly’s HEROIN Badlands the confiscation of vehicles was seemingly the goal of the PPD. You see a full scale police operation to shut down the heroin trade was “impossible”. An operation that resulted in dozens of drug addicts cars being confiscated after buying heroin went off without a hitch! Those confiscated vehicles turn to cash for the authorities.
A little late for that guy Donald Scott in the Santa Monica mountains the feds killed so they could steal his land.
Dumbo Roberts will encourage them to simply call it a TAX!!
a couple of things as I am reading through this thread
1. at what point does the 10th amendment become 100% meaningless ?
2. the 8th is cited, but it seems it’s being argued as if this is indeed an asset forfeiture case.
could weapons taken by the state for no reason be shoehorned in here ? probably not, cause no crime was committed ?
Which means, taking my 10k just because I am carrying it would also be ok.
3. How does this jibe with RICO ?
4. wonder what excessive is ? me too.
5. is confiscation considered a fine ?
cripes...
Methinks this a good move.
That sort of thing is not OK. And it happens every month. It is quite unsafe to have any large sum of cash on hand during a police encounter.
It is a special problem in the wholesale Produce industry, as this is an all-cash business where hundreds of thousands of dollars can change hands every morning.
More than a few Produce buyers have been nailed by the police with bogus asset (cash) confiscations. Maybe they were doing something else on the side. Maybe not. It would be nice to actually have a trial and a conviction before taking the money.
You want to be very careful to avoid police entanglements when buying (or selling) a car or boat for cash.
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.