• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Asset Forfeiture. No conviction necessary. Rules relaxed.

They either prove thats what happened in a criminal court of they don't take it.
Exactly. The reason we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure and for due process is precisely so police DON'T abuse their powers and act shady. History has shown that that can and does happen, hence is why that stuff is included in the Bill of Rights. Hell, if it weren't a problem, no one would have bothered to include it. It still does happen some, but not as much because we are usually pretty much vigilant about it.

Civil asset forfeiture (CAF), IMO, is clearly unconstitutional. I know the SC says otherwise. The SC buys into the notion that the property is charged, not the person, but... the Bill of Rights is very specific that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process, yet that is exactly what is done with CAF.

Go back to my first paragraph. Police are acting shady and abusing their powers precisely because they can, because the court signed off on it. Have we learned nothing?

Ignoring the intent of the Constitution for convenience sake is not good policy.
 
They either prove thats what happened in a criminal court of they don't take it.

you apparently don't understand the levels of proof in the court system.
 
Exactly. The reason we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure and for due process is precisely so police DON'T abuse their powers and act shady. History has shown that that can and does happen, hence is why that stuff is included in the Bill of Rights. Hell, if it weren't a problem, no one would have bothered to include it. It still does happen some, but not as much because we are usually pretty much vigilant about it.

Civil asset forfeiture (CAF), IMO, is clearly unconstitutional. I know the SC says otherwise. The SC buys into the notion that the property is charged, not the person, but... the Bill of Rights is very specific that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process, yet that is exactly what is done with CAF.

Go back to my first paragraph. Police are acting shady and abusing their powers precisely because they can, because the court signed off on it. Have we learned nothing?

Ignoring the intent of the Constitution for convenience sake is not good policy.


lets think this through

you are involved a traffic accident. You can lose everything you own through a judgement against you. that judgment is based on a preponderance of the evidence

same with a copyright dispute

a patent dispute

so why should forfeiture be a different standard? No I don't support the war on drugs. and if we changed the laws, then most of asset forfeiture should go away. but 99% of the forfeiture actions are justified
 
Here's a delightful little example from YeeHaw ground zero of why asset forfeiture is such a bad idea. Real world actions and real world consequences.

Oklahoma Official Used Asset Forfeiture to Pay Back His Student Loans - Hit & Run : Reason.com

An assistant district attorney in the state of Oklahoma lived rent-free in a house confiscated by local law enforcement under the practice of asset forfeiture. His office paid the utility bills. He remained there for five years, despite a court order to sell the house at auction.

Another district attorney used $5,000 worth of confiscated funds to pay back his student loans.
 
lets think this through

you are involved a traffic accident. You can lose everything you own through a judgement against you. that judgment is based on a preponderance of the evidence

same with a copyright dispute

a patent dispute

so why should forfeiture be a different standard? No I don't support the war on drugs. and if we changed the laws, then most of asset forfeiture should go away. but 99% of the forfeiture actions are justified
I question 99%. I'm sure probably a majority, but I question 99%. Too many legit examples of small-time seizures out there to be 99%.

Balance the examples you give with what is essentially legalized theft by a force with superior fire power and the courts to help them get away with it. If I'm a victim of said legalized theft I'm not going to be comforted by the fact that they're usually right. I've still been stolen from.

Plus, I see a distinct different between civil and criminal scenarios. CAF, despite being inappropriately named "civil", is done with criminal behavior in mind. So they say.
 
you apparently don't understand the levels of proof in the court system.

I do understand that the burden of proof is lower in a civil case than it is a criminal case..Which is why its used to literally steal property without actually charging the owner of the property of any actual crime. In a criminal forfeiture case the property is seized, but if the owner is not guilty the property is returned to that owner.In a civil forfeiture case the property itself is charged and the owner has to prove innocence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture
Civil versus criminal forfeiture

Civil procedure cases generally involve disputes between two private citizens, often about money or property, while criminal procedure involves a dispute between a private citizen and the state, usually because a law has been broken. In legal systems based on British law such as that of the United States, civil and criminal law cases are handled differently, with different tests and standards and procedures, and this is true of forfeiture proceedings as well. Both civil and criminal forfeiture involve the taking of assets by police.
In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property which is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant;[SUP][1][/SUP] the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned.
The tests to establish the burden of proof are different;[SUP][14][/SUP] in civil forfeiture, the test in most cases[SUP][20][/SUP] is whether police feel there is a preponderance of the evidence suggesting wrongdoing; in criminal forfeiture, the test is whether police feel the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a tougher test to meet.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP]
If property is seized in a civil forfeiture, it is "up to the owner to prove that his cash is clean."[SUP][5][/SUP] Normally both civil and criminal forfeiture require involvement by the judiciary; however, there is a variant of civil forfeiture called administrative forfeiture which is essentially a civil forfeiture which does not require involvement by the judiciary, which derives its powers from the Tariff Act of 1930, and empowers police to seize banned imported merchandise, as well as things used to import or transport or store a controlled substance, money, or other property which is less than $500,000 value.[SUP][1][/SUP]
 
I do understand that the burden of proof is lower in a civil case than it is a criminal case..Which is why its used to literally steal property without actually charging the owner of the property of any actual crime. In a criminal forfeiture case the property is seized, but if the owner is not guilty the property is returned to that owner.In a civil forfeiture case the property itself is charged and the owner has to prove innocence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture
Civil versus criminal forfeiture

Civil procedure cases generally involve disputes between two private citizens, often about money or property, while criminal procedure involves a dispute between a private citizen and the state, usually because a law has been broken. In legal systems based on British law such as that of the United States, civil and criminal law cases are handled differently, with different tests and standards and procedures, and this is true of forfeiture proceedings as well. Both civil and criminal forfeiture involve the taking of assets by police.
In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property which is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant;[SUP][1][/SUP] the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned.
\

quote edited to meet space requirements

what if the jury finds that the claimant is not the actual owner of the property? that is often the case in the civil forfeiture decisions.

Here is the usual jury form with proceeds (i.e. cash from narcotics sales)

1. Does the Jury find, by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is the rightful owner of the defendant

Yes_______ N0_______

If the answer is no, do not proceed and notify the bailiff of your decision

2. If the answer is yes, proceed to the following question

Does the jury find that the defendant was proceeds from illegal activities (such as narcotics trafficking)

Yes________ No_________

after answering this question inform the bailiff that you have reached a decision

in the other type of asset forfeiture its like this

1) Do you find that the defendant (car, home, property) was used to conceal, convey, transport, cultivate, hide, or facilitate narcotics or narcotics trafficking?

Yes_____ No_______

if your answer is no, inform the Bailiff that you have reached a decision, if not proceed to question 2

2) Do you find that the claimant was the owner of the defendant

Yes_______ No______ if your answer is No, inform the Bailiff that you have reached a decision. If yes, proceed to Question 3


3) does the jury find that the Claimant was an Innocent owner of the defendant?


Yes_____ No______

inform the Bailiff that you have reached a verdict



Three quarters of the cases I tried were disposed of by a finding that the claimant was NOT the owner of the defendant property
 
lets think this through

you are involved a traffic accident. You can lose everything you own through a judgement against you. that judgment is based on a preponderance of the evidence

same with a copyright dispute

a patent dispute

so why should forfeiture be a different standard? No I don't support the war on drugs. and if we changed the laws, then most of asset forfeiture should go away. but 99% of the forfeiture actions are justified

The difference is that in these civil forfeiture cases it is alleged that the property in question is a result of criminal activity. If its a result of a criminal activity as the state alledges then the same standards in a criminal case should be applied. If you get in a auto accident your property is not confiscated by the state and that property sued by the alleged auto accident victim in order to make it easier for them to take your property without proving your guilt.
 
quote edited to meet space requirements

what if the jury finds that the claimant is not the actual owner of the property? that is often the case in the civil forfeiture decisions.

Here is the usual jury form with proceeds (i.e. cash from narcotics sales)

1. Does the Jury find, by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is the rightful owner of the defendant

Yes_______ N0_______

If the answer is no, do not proceed and notify the bailiff of your decision

2. If the answer is yes, proceed to the following question

Does the jury find that the defendant was proceeds from illegal activities (such as narcotics trafficking)

Yes________ No_________

after answering this question inform the bailiff that you have reached a decision

in the other type of asset forfeiture its like this

1) Do you find that the defendant (car, home, property) was used to conceal, convey, transport, cultivate, hide, or facilitate narcotics or narcotics trafficking?

Yes_____ No_______

if your answer is no, inform the Bailiff that you have reached a decision, if not proceed to question 2

2) Do you find that the claimant was the owner of the defendant

Yes_______ No______ if your answer is No, inform the Bailiff that you have reached a decision. If yes, proceed to Question 3


3) does the jury find that the Claimant was an Innocent owner of the defendant?


Yes_____ No______

inform the Bailiff that you have reached a verdict



Three quarters of the cases I tried were disposed of by a finding that the claimant was NOT the owner of the defendant property

The property in question is being accused by the state of being involved in a criminal matter.Not a civil matter.Crminal matters require a higher standard of proof than in civil cases So using the preponderance of evidence standard is absurd. Also its not the owner of the property being charged with the crime but the property itself is being sued by the state.
 
Back
Top Bottom