Posted on 06/25/2017 2:22:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Asset forfeiture "has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses."
In March the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a Texas woman fighting for the return of over $200,000 in cash that the police seized from her family. Although neither Lisa Olivia Leonard nor any of her relatives were ever charged with any underlying crime connected to the cash, the state's sweeping asset forfeiture laws allowed the authorities to take the money.
The Supreme Court offered no explanation when it refused to hear Leonard v. Texas. But one member of the Court did speak up in protest. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that in his view modern asset forfeiture law is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday, one of the most influential federal appellate courts in the country—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—signaled its agreement with Thomas' assessment in a notable decision in favor of an innocent couple fighting for the return of $17,900 in cash seized by the police.
As Thomas explained in Leonard v. Texas, "this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses." For one thing, "because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture." For another, this sort of police abuse disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups. "These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings," he observed. "Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home."
To make matters worse, Thomas continued, the Supreme Court's previous rulings in this area do not line up with the text of the Constitution, which "presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards.
In short, Justice Thomas offered a searing indictment of modern civil asset forfeiture and called on the judiciary to start reconsidering its flawed approach.
The D.C. Circuit got the message. In its opinion yesterday in United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency, the D.C. Circuit repeatedly cited Thomas' Leonard v. Texas statement while ruling in favor of a New York City couple that went to court seeking the return of $17,900 in cash seized by law enforcement officials. Once again, the police took the money despite the fact that no underlying criminal charges were ever filed. But after Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland submitted a claim requesting the return of their seized money, a federal district judge ruled that they lacked standing, thus ending their case and leaving the government in possession of their cash. Describing the legal process that led to this result as "onerous, unfair, and unrealistic," the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court.
"The pair has a right to contest whether the money is subject to forfeiture," the D.C. Circuit held. "Despite the government's best efforts, this will remain an adversary proceeding." Now that their standing to bring suit has been recognized, Rodriguez and Copeland will continue their legal battle to get their money back.
Critics of civil asset forfeiture should be heartened by this ruling. Not only did it vindicate the legal standing of innocent people fighting for the return of their own money, it shows that the lower courts are starting to heed Justice Thomas' call to arms against asset forfeiture abuse.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a direct offshoot of the war on drugs. And any conservative who doesn’t condemn it isn’t a real conservative.
I’m with you. I understand the need to fight drug dealers and money laundering and all that. But, everyone should be entitled to due process. How the heck can police or other government officials just seize cash without due process, without criminal prosecution?? How the heck did this evolve to the point where they will seize cash with no criminal activity suspected, and then it’s up to you to sue to get your own money back???
Cooper is big on BigGov.
He replaced Royce Lamberth.
Well said!
Also,the criminal charges I mentioned must be filed within a brief time frame (perhaps 30 days) or else the valuable thing must be returned.
Also,it must be specified that if the person is placed on trial and is found not guilty he/she is entitled to bigtime damages...perhaps $100,000.
Yeah, good luck with that. If they're serious about curtailing police powers in this legal larceny scheme, congress should allow the victims to pursue multiples of the amount stolen by the LE entities.
Let's see how eager they will be to seize my $50,000 when they learn the law will allow me to recover a million.
No, Uncle Joe killed 20+ million Russians / Ukrainians. This man knows how to Kill.
And the New York Times' Duranty received a Pulitzer for positive Uncle Joe Propaganda. God you just have to love the New York Times.
There should be no civil asset forfeiture without a conviction for related crimes. None. If that means the bad guys get to keep their loot so the good guys don’t have to endure a grabby government (and it just hasn’t been shown that any government won’t get grabby given the option to be so) then so be it.
There should also be no ordinary civil liability for any situation where the underlying issue is a crime without a conviction for that crime first. Yes, that would mean OJ would have truly walked but is it really the function of our system to make sure someone can extract their pound of flesh however they may?
In illegal alien cases once they are proven to be here illegally should have all their assets forfeited because they are ill gotten gains.
Watch the self deportation begin.
Always entertaining to watch Hitler minimized. The difference between Stalin and Hitler is nil.
Same with nazism communism.
Hitler and company tried to keep their names off of orders to kill.
Stalin relished putting his on them. Probably read some of those letters from folks pleading with him to save them now that he knows of their plight with murderous cackles of delight.
I agree. You cannot defend when you are assumed guilty and your property is simply taken by the government.
Which by the way has a conflict of interest as government then uses that money to buy things it desires to have.
National Socialism is Socialism.
Communism is supposedly the end goal of socialism.
So, no difference.
They are all forced to be “patriotic” about their country’s socialism so they are all national socialists and superior to non socialist countries.
Agreed.
Isn’t minimizing Hitler to show he didn’t measure up to Stalin’s accomplishments in cruelty and death.
Probably a Nagant in that holster in the picture above.
Which part of “without due process” did you not understand?
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.