• 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!

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Is Civil Asset Forteiture Constitutional?

  • yes, just the way it is set up now

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • basically yes, but some small modifications

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • basically yes, with major revisions

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • it is NOT Constitutional; 4th Amendment applies

    Votes: 24 75.0%
  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
W

Waddy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
8,518
Reaction score
2,430
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have some serious reservations regarding civil asset forfeiture taking property from people without probable cause or any due process. And often times the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Meaning a person be accused of a relatively minor offense but thousands of dollars of property are confiscated; maybe teenager selling pot out of the basement and granny loses the house she's owned for forty years. Finally a federal judge has ruled two provisions of asset forfeiture not Constitutional.

A federal judge has ruled that Albuquerque's civil asset forfeiture program violated residents' due process rights by forcing them to prove their innocence to retrieve their cars. Under civil forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner isn't charged with a crime.

The city of Albuquerque "has an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases, because, in practice, the forfeiture program sets its own budget and can spend, without meaningful oversight, all of the excess funds it raises from previous years," U.S. District Judge James O. Browning wrote in an order filed Saturday. "Thus, there is a 'realistic possibility' that forfeiture officials' judgment 'will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain'—the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend."
Click to expand...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/federal-judge-rules-albuquerques-asset-f

I also saw on a talk show that 40% of police budgets nationwide are funded by civil asset forfeiture. They also pay for trips to places like Hawaii for "training seminars". Seem like a system ripe for abuse to me.
 
It's interesting how no one has ever applied civil asset forfeiture to any of the major banking outfits which were caught red-handed committing money laundering.

It might also be interesting to see what would happen if civil asset forfeiture were applied to some of the Trump properties currently involved in some of the investigations.

There might also be a few senators and congressmen who might see some of their property scooped up as well.
 
Civil forfeiture was originally designed to take the assets of drug lords to prevent them from hiring the high dollar lawyers that were beating the Justice Department lawyers. Cynics would call this an attempt to deny them due process through inadequate defense council. But give the government an once and they tale the whole tape measure.

Now it’s scamming people out of cars and old ladies out of rent money.

It needs to be heard and overturned by SCOTUS.
 
chuckiechan said:
Civil forfeiture was originally designed to take the assets of drug lords to prevent them from hiring the high dollar lawyers that were beating the Justice Department lawyers. Cynics would call this an attempt to deny them due process through inadequate defense council. But give the government an once and they tale the whole tape measure.

Now it’s scamming people out of cars and old ladies out of rent money.

It needs to be heard and overturned by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I actually tried over a dozen of these cases. in most cases, the forfeiture was valid. There are cases that abuse peoples' rights. BTW the standard of proof has increased on the government in the last few years

last case I handled. "Dave" was a well known drug dealer. a raid on his house found multi=pound quantities of Marijuana, loaded weapons, and lots of money. His tax returns showed 14K in income the year before. He had over 150K in his home. He got 8 months in a state conviction

the federal task force obtained a warrant for his mother's house. a safe was found-the dealer's half brother said it belonged to the dealer. The mother claimed it was hers. when the police asked her to open it, she called the dealer to get the combination (this was not something the jury heard for reasons that aren't relevant)

in it was 250K or so-the DEALER made no claim to it
the mother claimed it was hers. a reliable dog hit on the cash five times in five different locations
The mother claimed it was her savings over several years. an expert testified that if the cash had been sitting as long as the claimant said it was-the dog would not have hit on it

a forensic accountant reviewed the claimant's financial activity and testified that the mother (who had her wages garnished etc) didn't have the cash flow to accumulate the money. The husband of the claimant had no knowledge of the money in the safe

the jury held that the claimant WAS NOT THE OWNER of the money and granted the DOJ and the DEA task force forfeiture. The mother was not charged with a drug offense since there was no evidence she dealt drugs.

was this proper? of course it was since drug dealers often put property in the name of friends who aren't dealers. so forfeiture isn't taking money OWNED by innocent people.

BTW the dealer was busted by the feds two years later. as part of his plea agreement, he admitted the cash at his mother's was his. the USA declined to prosecute the mother for perjury
 
Civil asset forfeiture can punish people before they are even found guilty. Plus, taking away their assets removes some of their legal options, potentially making those convictions and the resulting permanent loss of those assets easier.

 
Waddy said:
I have some serious reservations regarding civil asset forfeiture taking property from people without probable cause or any due process.
Click to expand...
AFAIK asset forfeiture is meant to confiscate ill-gotten goods before criminals can hide them. I'm fine with that, just not the way it is done.

Firstly, the authorities should have to prove within a reasonable amount of time that the goods are the proceeds of criminal enterprise.
(Presenting the case to a judge within 24 hours, standard of proof, etc. applies.)

Secondly, if the authorities fail to provide proof, double the value of the seized goods should be returned to the owner .
(If you are not absolutely sure, you have no business seizing anything from private citizens, and deserve to have the accountants come for you.)

Thirdly, any reasonable, documented expenses the owner has incurred as a result of the seizure, should be compensated also.
(For instance if a car was seized, and the owner had to lease a car to get to work.)
 
I vote for Yes With Major Revisions.

While I understand that criminal assets can and probably should be seized if they are a part of the criminal enterprise, such as stashes of drugs and money made from selling them, it is wrong to seize houses, cars and other assets that were not involved in the crime.

More so, any seized assets should be immediately returned upon the person being acquired and further, no assets should be retained that exceed the judgement against the defendant. If he gets a $2,000 fine, seized assets (except contraband) should not be retained in an amount greater than his fine. And, the retained amount should apply to his fine.

There are some good reasons for retaining civil forfeiture but it's being abused and that has to stop.
 
HK.227 said:
AFAIK asset forfeiture is meant to confiscate ill-gotten goods before criminals can hide them. I'm fine with that, just not the way it is done.

Firstly, the authorities should have to prove within a reasonable amount of time that the goods are the proceeds of criminal enterprise.
(Presenting the case to a judge within 24 hours, standard of proof, etc. applies.)

Secondly, if the authorities fail to provide proof, double the value of the seized goods should be returned to the owner .
(If you are not absolutely sure, you have no business seizing anything from private citizens, and deserve to have the accountants come for you.)

Thirdly, any reasonable, documented expenses the owner has incurred as a result of the seizure, should be compensated also.
(For instance if a car was seized, and the owner had to lease a car to get to work.)
Click to expand...

I agree, but would like to see treble damages. The system is too much temptation to create a crooked Police Dept. Like crooked politicians. If they can, they will.
/
 
TurtleDude said:
I actually tried over a dozen of these cases. in most cases, the forfeiture was valid. There are cases that abuse peoples' rights. BTW the standard of proof has increased on the government in the last few years

last case I handled. "Dave" was a well known drug dealer. a raid on his house found multi=pound quantities of Marijuana, loaded weapons, and lots of money. His tax returns showed 14K in income the year before. He had over 150K in his home. He got 8 months in a state conviction

the federal task force obtained a warrant for his mother's house. a safe was found-the dealer's half brother said it belonged to the dealer. The mother claimed it was hers. when the police asked her to open it, she called the dealer to get the combination (this was not something the jury heard for reasons that aren't relevant)

in it was 250K or so-the DEALER made no claim to it
the mother claimed it was hers. a reliable dog hit on the cash five times in five different locations
The mother claimed it was her savings over several years. an expert testified that if the cash had been sitting as long as the claimant said it was-the dog would not have hit on it

a forensic accountant reviewed the claimant's financial activity and testified that the mother (who had her wages garnished etc) didn't have the cash flow to accumulate the money. The husband of the claimant had no knowledge of the money in the safe

the jury held that the claimant WAS NOT THE OWNER of the money and granted the DOJ and the DEA task force forfeiture. The mother was not charged with a drug offense since there was no evidence she dealt drugs.

was this proper? of course it was since drug dealers often put property in the name of friends who aren't dealers. so forfeiture isn't taking money OWNED by innocent people.

BTW the dealer was busted by the feds two years later. as part of his plea agreement, he admitted the cash at his mother's was his. the USA declined to prosecute the mother for perjury
Click to expand...

And in the case you described forfeiture might be justified. The problem is often it is not and people lose their property even without a conviction or even charges being filled. I am a firm believer that if the government passes a law, no matter the original intent, the government and it's agencies will eventually use that law in ways it was never intended.
At the very least these sorts of laws should have a very limited applicable range where it can be applied or remove the law entirely. Remember we are talking about justice and for many justice was never involved.
 
Casper said:
And in the case you described forfeiture might be justified. The problem is often it is not and people lose their property even without a conviction or even charges being filled. I am a firm believer that if the government passes a law, no matter the original intent, the government and it's agencies will eventually use that law in ways it was never intended.
At the very least these sorts of laws should have a very limited applicable range where it can be applied or remove the law entirely. Remember we are talking about justice and for many justice was never involved.
Click to expand...

I think the cases where "innocent" people lose THEIR property is far lower than some claim. lots of people would reference the case I tried and say the "poor woman wasn't charged but she lost 250K"

she never lost it-it was never her property in the first place
 
Beaudreaux said:
Yes, but only after the accused's 4th Amendment protections are preserved.
Click to expand...

you are confusing a criminal defendant with a claimant in a civil forfeiture case
 
TurtleDude said:
you are confusing a criminal defendant with a claimant in a civil forfeiture case
Click to expand...

I looked for you specifically. Please speak to me about ‘plastic’ guns where appropriate. I especially look forward to Kori weighing in on this.
 
Waddy said:
I have some serious reservations regarding civil asset forfeiture taking property from people without probable cause or any due process. And often times the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Meaning a person be accused of a relatively minor offense but thousands of dollars of property are confiscated; maybe teenager selling pot out of the basement and granny loses the house she's owned for forty years. Finally a federal judge has ruled two provisions of asset forfeiture not Constitutional.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/federal-judge-rules-albuquerques-asset-f

I also saw on a talk show that 40% of police budgets nationwide are funded by civil asset forfeiture. They also pay for trips to places like Hawaii for "training seminars". Seem like a system ripe for abuse to me.
Click to expand...

It's essentially theft from people yet to be found "guilty" by a court of law. And even if you're never found guilty...good luck getting your stuff back.

Government loves to steal.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Yes, but only after the accused's 4th Amendment protections are preserved.
Click to expand...

You’re another one I must hear from on ‘plastic’ guns, Beau.

Sorry to derail this thread, Helix, but I have important yard jobs I must finish before heading to the farm later this week and all of the important and ‘fun’ jobs that await.

I’ve already had to call my iPhone once today. This discussion of ALL of of our Bill of Rights is an extremely important one. DP is the Leader of the internet. Let’s take care of business. Back to important yard jobs.
 
Waddy said:
I have some serious reservations regarding civil asset forfeiture taking property from people without probable cause or any due process. And often times the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Meaning a person be accused of a relatively minor offense but thousands of dollars of property are confiscated; maybe teenager selling pot out of the basement and granny loses the house she's owned for forty years. Finally a federal judge has ruled two provisions of asset forfeiture not Constitutional.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/federal-judge-rules-albuquerques-asset-f

I also saw on a talk show that 40% of police budgets nationwide are funded by civil asset forfeiture. They also pay for trips to places like Hawaii for "training seminars". Seem like a system ripe for abuse to me.
Click to expand...

I say no.The fourth amendment says you need a warrant based on probable cause to search and and seize someone and or their property. But this was mostly ignored due to the fact people try making the 4th amendment about privacy. With the privacy claim they can say that since you are outside, don't have your blinds closed and etc that you have no right to expect privacy.

Civil asset forfeiture should be illegal due to the fact is most cases the property itself is sued in a civil court. Which requires a lower standard of proof than a criminal court for a guilty conviction and it requires that the owner prove innocence. Civil asset forfeiture is straight up theft. If law enforcement actually thinks that money or property was obtained from illicit means then they should charge the owner of that property and in a criminal court they should prove that the owner of that money or property obtained it from illicit means.
 
Waddy said:
I have some serious reservations regarding civil asset forfeiture taking property from people without probable cause or any due process. And often times the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Meaning a person be accused of a relatively minor offense but thousands of dollars of property are confiscated; maybe teenager selling pot out of the basement and granny loses the house she's owned for forty years. Finally a federal judge has ruled two provisions of asset forfeiture not Constitutional.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/federal-judge-rules-albuquerques-asset-f

I also saw on a talk show that 40% of police budgets nationwide are funded by civil asset forfeiture. They also pay for trips to places like Hawaii for "training seminars". Seem like a system ripe for abuse to me.
Click to expand...
Civil asset forfeiture is unacceptable.

It is legalized theft.
 
Its a terrible policy and is basically legal theft by the state. This is just another horror of the war on drugs. Lets just declare victory and end it now.
 
We have to remember that civil forfeiture, while it might have lead to some instances of unconstitutional action, has also been useful in curbing terrorism and preventing money laundering. Also, cops can obtain warrants on certain posessions, including money and other belongings, which is applicable by 4th Amendment standards.
 
TurtleDude said:
I actually tried over a dozen of these cases. in most cases, the forfeiture was valid. There are cases that abuse peoples' rights. BTW the standard of proof has increased on the government in the last few years

last case I handled. "Dave" was a well known drug dealer. a raid on his house found multi=pound quantities of Marijuana, loaded weapons, and lots of money. His tax returns showed 14K in income the year before. He had over 150K in his home. He got 8 months in a state conviction

the federal task force obtained a warrant for his mother's house. a safe was found-the dealer's half brother said it belonged to the dealer. The mother claimed it was hers. when the police asked her to open it, she called the dealer to get the combination (this was not something the jury heard for reasons that aren't relevant)

in it was 250K or so-the DEALER made no claim to it
the mother claimed it was hers. a reliable dog hit on the cash five times in five different locations
The mother claimed it was her savings over several years. an expert testified that if the cash had been sitting as long as the claimant said it was-the dog would not have hit on it

a forensic accountant reviewed the claimant's financial activity and testified that the mother (who had her wages garnished etc) didn't have the cash flow to accumulate the money. The husband of the claimant had no knowledge of the money in the safe

the jury held that the claimant WAS NOT THE OWNER of the money and granted the DOJ and the DEA task force forfeiture. The mother was not charged with a drug offense since there was no evidence she dealt drugs.

was this proper? of course it was since drug dealers often put property in the name of friends who aren't dealers. so forfeiture isn't taking money OWNED by innocent people.

BTW the dealer was busted by the feds two years later. as part of his plea agreement, he admitted the cash at his mother's was his. the USA declined to prosecute the mother for perjury
Click to expand...

In your examples all of the people were actually prosecuted in court as part of the forfeiture. I doubt anyone objects to that, as due process is being observed. What about the people who have property forfeitures and aren't even charged with a crime, yet their property is not returned? This seems to be widespread enough that there are now lawsuits all over the country. Did you know civil asset forfeiture nationwide takes more assets than burglary?
 
Waddy said:
In your examples all of the people were actually prosecuted in court as part of the forfeiture. I doubt anyone objects to that, as due process is being observed. What about the people who have property forfeitures and aren't even charged with a crime, yet their property is not returned? This seems to be widespread enough that there are now lawsuits all over the country. Did you know civil asset forfeiture nationwide takes more assets than burglary?
Click to expand...

the claimant was not charged the dealer declined make a claim

the main question is usually this:

is the person who claims the property really the owner

there are essentially two kinds of forfeitures

1) legitimately owned property that is then used to facilitate a crime-example-a young lady was in an accident and got a 100K settlement. she bought a sports car. two months later she was arrested doing 80 in a school zone. The cops found a salt shaker full of coke in the glove box. Under federal laws, any vehicle used to knowingly transport or conceal narcotics is forfeitable. These are the cases where most alleged abuse takes place-like someone you know grows dope on your real estate and the government seizes your farm and you have to establish you weren't aware of felony cultivation

2) illegal proceeds. like the case I tried. in these cases, the claimant often isn't the real owner. One case I had, the GF of a major league coke dealer was pulled over and 18K or so was in the car. We got three different stories of who owned it-ultimately the only claimant was a lottery winner who was the friend of the father of the real owner-the dealer. Now we had wire taps and we knew whose money it was but for reasons of maintaining a long time investigation, I couldn't tell the jury that. We won anyway. now some people claimed that the lottery winner was never charged but we took "HIS" money away. now two years later the dealer was busted with 50 or so Kilos of coke. he ratted lots of people out including the old guy who made the claim. The head of the district gave me the call about a perjury charge against the claimant. the man was 75 or so with a clean record so I decided not to but this guy was no innocent owner. He never owned the money
 
civil forfeiture, by the police without there being any charges or court cases to determine guilt or innocence of a person is just legalized police theft.

Only judges should be allowed to forfeit property and funds after (and only after a guilty plea or verdict).

The devious police tactic of taking stuff and then making the owners jump through hoops to get their legal property back is theft, stealing, an affront to decency and fairness.
 
Waddy said:
I have some serious reservations regarding civil asset forfeiture taking property from people without probable cause or any due process. And often times the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Meaning a person be accused of a relatively minor offense but thousands of dollars of property are confiscated; maybe teenager selling pot out of the basement and granny loses the house she's owned for forty years. Finally a federal judge has ruled two provisions of asset forfeiture not Constitutional.



https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/federal-judge-rules-albuquerques-asset-f

I also saw on a talk show that 40% of police budgets nationwide are funded by civil asset forfeiture. They also pay for trips to places like Hawaii for "training seminars". Seem like a system ripe for abuse to me.
Click to expand...

In the late 1980's, when civil asset forfeitures were first upheld by lower courts, I was the finance director of a SoCal city. I was confident that SCOTUS would squash such an obviously unconstitutional abuse as forcing individuals to prove their innocence when their property had already been seized, sold, and the profits plopped into the coffers of the city making a priority of simply stealing a citizen's property without due process, even when evidence of guilt could not be provided.

I was wrong. SCOTUS cheerfully approved this unconstitutional asset seizure and I was both gobsmacked and horrified at the governmental abuse inflicted on innocent citizens of this country. I saw first-hand the abuse our city police department heaped upon citizens in order to procure extra funding for "toys", "department luxuries" and increased funding for police wages/benefits on this ill-gained source of seized financial support.

I subsequently quit my job, unable and unwilling to be a party to such blatant theft and abuse of ordinary citizens by the officials sworn to "serve and protect" them.

Two decades later, this travesty still exists, as does my disillusionment in government officials, from local to national larceny against its citizens.
 
DiAnna said:
In the late 1980's, when civil asset forfeitures were first upheld by lower courts, I was the finance director of a SoCal city. I was confident that SCOTUS would squash such an obviously unconstitutional abuse as forcing individuals to prove their innocence when their property had already been seized, sold, and the profits plopped into the coffers of the city making a priority of simply stealing a citizen's property without due process, even when evidence of guilt could not be provided.

I was wrong. SCOTUS cheerfully approved this unconstitutional asset seizure and I was both gobsmacked and horrified at the governmental abuse inflicted on innocent citizens of this country. I saw first-hand the abuse our city police department heaped upon citizens in order to procure extra funding for "toys", "department luxuries" and increased funding for police wages/benefits on this ill-gained source of seized financial support.

I subsequently quit my job, unable and unwilling to be a party to such blatant theft and abuse of ordinary citizens by the officials sworn to "serve and protect" them.

Two decades later, this travesty still exists, as does my disillusionment in government officials, from local to national larceny against its citizens.
Click to expand...

I constantly complain about the expansion of federal power by what FDR did. especially on gun issues but lots of people who complain about other expansions of federal powers seem happy with what FDR did. and this forfeiture activity is based on the commerce clause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom