• 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!

Should assets seizure and forfeiture be legal by law enforcement be legal?

Should assets seizure and forfeiture be legal by law enforcement be legal?


  • Total voters
    21

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should assets seizure and forfeiture be legal by law enforcement be legal?


Yes but with certain restrictions.
Yes as the laws currently exist
no
maybe/other



Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[h=2]Asset forfeiture in the United States[/h] There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.
The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.
A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such funds. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.









I picked yes but with certain restrictions. A guilty verdict of the accused either in a criminal trial or a civil trial with with the same standards as a criminal trial should have to happen and after that the government should have to prove in a court with the same standards of a criminal trial that all of the property in questions was acquired through illegal means.
 
Last edited:
Without much thought , the seizure should be legal(given the probable cause), BUT the forfeiture should only be after a trial.
IMO, its wrong that the costs (usually $10000 or more) and the time ( 3 years) be so excessive.
Things must be done to improve this situation.
The Democratic Senator Whitmire is correct in investigating these shady dealings..
 
I picked yes but with certain restrictions. A guilty verdict of the accused either in a criminal trial or a civil trial with with the same standards as a criminal trial should have to happen and after that the government should have to prove in a court with the same standards of a criminal trial that all of the property in questions was acquired through illegal means.

This sums my view up as well.

Recent news reports of TN law enforcement for example seizing money they suspect of being part of the drug trade and then forcing persons to file (and in some cases prove it was legally obtained) to receive their money back are very disturbing. A person should not be forced to prove that they were not breaking the law, that falls on the prosecution to prove that someone has broken the law.
 
Law enforcement are not courts and should never be able to seize assets without first obtaining a court order - and then it is the government, not police, who have the assets. Allowing police to just take people's money and property summarily and then only if the person can afford to spend and lose all the attorney fees, court costs, other expenses plus wait a year or two not only seems to have turned polcie into criminals with badges, but fly directly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
 
Law enforcement are not courts and should never be able to seize assets without first obtaining a court order - and then it is the government, not police, who have the assets. Allowing police to just take people's money and property summarily and then only if the person can afford to spend and lose all the attorney fees, court costs, other expenses plus wait a year or two not only seems to have turned polcie into criminals with badges, but fly directly in the face of the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, this.
 
When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.

It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.
 
The way the law now is written, the government has a license to steal. We need a complete rewrite of the laws from scratch.
 
I would be willing to accept asset forfeiture as part of the sentence for a person convicted of a felony. What we have now is nothing short of theft.
 
since I think the war on drugs has to end, I guess my perspective is different. However, I have seen dozens of forfeiture cases where the government could not prove "guilt" of the claimant but the forfeiture was justified. But the bounty it provides to government agencies has caused massive abuse
 
I do believe the government has abused this power. I would like to see limitations on it.

But I will say now what I have said before. I do not think it is pure coincidence that the rise in government seizures - especially by local departments - has occurred at the very time that taxes are reduced and local municipalities find themselves in a economic pinch. As states cut back on revenue sharing, the cities and town try to make it up somewhere - and I fear this is one way they have done it.

Thus the conservative/right crusade for lower taxes produces an unwanted result that we all complain about.
 
When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.

It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.

The way the law now is written, the government has a license to steal. We need a complete rewrite of the laws from scratch.

I disagree with the premise that this is in any way legal. The Fifth Amendment is very, very, very clear.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.


Clearly, asset forfeiture as currently practiced, directly violates the clear letter and intent of the Fifth Amendment. The effect and purpose of asset forfeiture is to deprive people of property, without due process of law, and without fair compensation.
 
When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.

It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.
Yep.

since I think the war on drugs has to end, I guess my perspective is different. However, I have seen dozens of forfeiture cases where the government could not prove "guilt" of the claimant but the forfeiture was justified. But the bounty it provides to government agencies has caused massive abuse
This, both of you hit on it. I have no problems with assets attained by provably breaking the law being subject to forfeit, and I have no problem with civil forfeiture in a merited case but both of these circumstances should always be done by due process. It stinks to high heaven that a person's property ends up on the market before they've actually received a guilty verdict and that needs to end yesterday. As well the war on drugs is an exercise in futility, I'm waiting for someone to either grow a spine or a brain and suggest smart drug policy, end marijuana prohibition(I don't imbibe) and deal with the "victimless" drugs of the harder variety by setting up a clinical use system that would be monitored by health professionals thus ending the black market.
 
since I think the war on drugs has to end, I guess my perspective is different. However, I have seen dozens of forfeiture cases where the government could not prove "guilt" of the claimant but the forfeiture was justified. But the bounty it provides to government agencies has caused massive abuse

Pretty much the textbook example of "perverse incentive".
 
When these forfeiture laws first went into effect in the '80's, our police department went into a gleeful spiral of instant abuse, commandeering cars, setting up stings that wouldn't pass the "entrapment test" smell, selling all their loot and pocketing the profits for themselves. I was certain the law would be struck down within months. Yet here we are, decades later, still profiteering from the abuse by stealing from people who have not only not been convicted of a crime, they haven't even been charged with one.

It's legalized theft, unconstitutional as hell and I can't believe it hasn't been stopped.
It boggles my brain cells that the Supreme Court... in a 9-0 decision... hasn't said, "What the eff were you people thinking when you wrote these laws?!?"
 
It boggles my brain cells that the Supreme Court... in a 9-0 decision... hasn't said, "What the eff were you people thinking when you wrote these laws?!?"

If the SC actually made rulings based solely on the constitution a whole **** load of laws would not exist. Both sides have selected judges based purely on political slant.
 
I picked yes but with certain restrictions. A guilty verdict of the accused either in a criminal trial or a civil trial with with the same standards as a criminal trial should have to happen and after that the government should have to prove in a court with the same standards of a criminal trial that all of the property in questions was acquired through illegal means.

I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.
 
no forfeiture without a conviction and proof that the assets to be seized were a result of the criminal activity that the individual was convicted of.
 
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.
There is only one way I can interpret this... due process is an inconvenience and an annoyance that must be eliminated.

Ok, two ways: I don't mean any offense, but honestly, it is incredibly naive to think that humans are capable of restricting themselves to skirting due process only when they *know* a crime has been committed, yet allow for due process in all other cases... and never ever abuse the 'freedom' they would have.
 
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.

Due process exist to protect the citizens not make the government's job easy.
 
There is only one way I can interpret this... due process is an inconvenience and an annoyance that must be eliminated.

Ok, two ways: I don't mean any offense, but honestly, it is incredibly naive to think that humans are capable of restricting themselves to skirting due process only when they *know* a crime has been committed, yet allow for due process in all other cases... and never ever abuse the 'freedom' they would have.

How is a court order not due process?
 
How is a court order not due process?
In your scenario the court order is only done after-the-fact. After the seizure has taken place. Any reasonably articulate person can fill in the blanks after a seizure has been done to legitimize it.

I should ask: When you say seize the vehicle, do you also mean keep the vehicle?
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.

I agree that seizing the SUV for evidence is warranted. BUT, if charges are. It pressed and the investigation is ended, it changes the entire ball game.

I feel it is a very clear violation of the Fifth to keep it once the investigation has ended.
 
In your scenario the court order is only done after-the-fact. After the seizure has taken place. Any reasonably articulate person can fill in the blanks after a seizure has been done to legitimize it.

I should ask: When you say seize the vehicle, do you also mean keep the vehicle?

Yes, I would support keeping the vehicle in that kind of situation. I know it's abused. And those abuses should be stopped immediately. But if your car is carrying 500# of MJ (my example), I have no problem at all with it being seized as evidence and then kept by virtue of a court order outlining facts that are as plain as the nose on one's face.

I'm guessing this situation rarely happens, though -- that property is seized without charges being pressed. As to having to find them guilty first, we all know that a finding of not-guilty often has little to do with innocence.
 
Yes, I would support keeping the vehicle in that kind of situation. I know it's abused. And those abuses should be stopped immediately. But if your car is carrying 500# of MJ (my example), I have no problem at all with it being seized as evidence and then kept by virtue of a court order outlining facts that are as plain as the nose on one's face.

I'm guessing this situation rarely happens, though -- that property is seized without charges being pressed. As to having to find them guilty first, we all know that a finding of not-guilty often has little to do with innocence.
Then I stand by original interpretation as being correct... you find due process a hindrance and unnecessary.

You say that abuses should be stopped immediately, but seriously, how do you propose to do that without the check/balance of something like due process? Due process was never intended to give the upper hand to criminals (though it is often abused by criminals as well, yes). Due process was/is intended to thwart abuses by "the system".
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with this. If an SUV is pulled over for speeding and 500 pounds of marijuana is found in it, regardless of whether or not there are criminal charges pressed, I think the state should be able to seize the truck and all its contents -- through court order requiring the state to lay out its reasoning.

I disagree. The load could have been bound for legal medical marijuana clinics. No assets should ever be confiscated until after a defendent has been convicted of the crime, and then only by court order.
 
Back
Top Bottom