Showdown looms between Congress, police over civil asset forfeiture

[radcen]

This article has a lot of good detail and some good information about recently introduced legislation.

Showdown looms between Congress, police over civil asset forfeiture

Showdown looms between Congress, police over civil asset forfeiture | Fox News

 

[Carjosse]

Civil forfeiture is just legalized robbery by the police.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I'm still waiting for the Federal de-criminalizing possession and use of recreational drugs...which would be a big step in eliminating asset forfeiture at it's root.

I wonder what happened to that recent bill legalizing marijuana? Hmmm.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm still waiting for the Federal de-criminalizing possession and use of recreational drugs...which would be a big step in eliminating asset forfeiture at it's root.

I wonder what happened to that recent bill legalizing marijuana? Hmmm.

Yeah crack wars, anarchy, and destruction of our healthcare system for the win!

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yeah crack wars, anarchy, and destruction of our healthcare system for the win!

Perhaps, but we already have all of that occurring...PLUS all the police corruption, direct and associated crimes, increasing burdens on the criminal justice system, gang wars, cartels, bribery, criminal records destroying lives, etc.

Oh yeah, and the basis for asset forfeiture codes. :roll:

 

[Moot]

This article has a lot of good detail and some good information about recently introduced legislation.

I would think that government forfeiture of property without criminal charges would be an abuse and violation of the fifth amendment and public trust. I fail to see how an old British law about piracy on the open seas can be used to punish "speeding motorists in small town America". Civil forfeiture without criminal charges is just pure piracy on the open highways...and the police are the pirates.

Survey's show over-whelming bi-partisan support and 80% of the public want civil forfeiture abolished. But not Trump or Jeff Session...they like government forfeiture because it brings in billions of illegal revenue that does nothing to benefit the public.

 

[molten_dragon]

It's good to see that the law is starting to shift on this issue. It's one of the most egregious abuses of the legal system taking place right now.

 

[radcen]

I would think that government forfeiture of property without criminal charges would be an abuse and violation of the fifth amendment and public trust. I fail to see how an old British law about piracy on the open seas can be used to punish "speeding motorists in small town America". Civil forfeiture without criminal charges is just pure piracy on the open highways...and the police are the pirates.

Survey's show over-whelming bi-partisan support and 80% of the public want civil forfeiture abolished. But not Trump or Jeff Session...they like government forfeiture because it brings in billions of illegal revenue that does nothing to benefit the public.

That's always been baffling to me, as well. I thought the point of the Revolution was to get away from arbitrary and draconian laws.

Especially when the 5th Amendment specifically says...

"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 offence 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."

Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

There are many things debatable in the Constitution, but this one seems very clear to me. How can the government charge property when said property belongs to someone and the 5A says said someone cannot be deprived of their property without due process? IMO, the SC willfully ignored the Constitution on that one.

 

[Helix]

civil asset forfeiture should be banned nationwide. it is the textbook definition of conflict of interest; right up there with letting elected politicians draw their own districts.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's always been baffling to me, as well. I thought the point of the Revolution was to get away from arbitrary and draconian laws.

Especially when the 5th Amendment specifically says...

"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 offence 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."

Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

There are many things debatable in the Constitution, but this one seems very clear to me. How can the government charge property when said property belongs to someone and the 5A says said someone cannot be deprived of their property without due process? IMO, the SC willfully ignored the Constitution on that one.

Civil asset forfeiture is the ability of the state to demand that you prove ownership of property in your possession at your own expense and to their satisfaction - or they may keep that property. No receipt for that cash, gun or antiques? We, as armed agents of the state, will take them until you can produce acceptable proof of ownership documentation.

 

[radcen]

Civil asset forfeiture is the ability of the state to demand that you prove ownership of property in your possession at your own expense and to their satisfaction - or they may keep that property. No receipt for that cash, gun or antiques? We, as armed agents of the state, will take them until you can produce acceptable proof of ownership documentation.

It is not uncommon that even when people do provide proof, it is denied.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It is not uncommon that even when people do provide proof, it is denied.

It must not have been acceptable proof.

 

[braindrain]

I would think that government forfeiture of property without criminal charges would be an abuse and violation of the fifth amendment and public trust. I fail to see how an old British law about piracy on the open seas can be used to punish "speeding motorists in small town America". Civil forfeiture without criminal charges is just pure piracy on the open highways...and the police are the pirates.

Survey's show over-whelming bi-partisan support and 80% of the public want civil forfeiture abolished. But not Trump or Jeff Session...they like government forfeiture because it brings in billions of illegal revenue that does nothing to benefit the public.

Funny you attack Trump for this. But give Obama a pass for the 8 years he allowed it to continue. Actually it's not funny it's simply sad how much of a partisan hack you are.

 

[Moot]

Funny you attack Trump for this. But give Obama a pass for the 8 years he allowed it to continue. Actually it's not funny it's simply sad how much of a partisan hack you are.

It's laughable how you still blame Obama for everything....and what a disgusting partisan hack you truly are. :roll:

 

[reinoe]

It's laughable how you still blame Obama for everything....and what a disgusting partisan hack you truly are. :roll:

Obama put pressure on AG to prevent legal challenges to asset forfeiture. Trump is bringing it to the courts ASAP.

 

[Moot]

Obama put pressure on AG to prevent legal challenges to asset forfeiture. Trump is bringing it to the courts ASAP.

Link?

I don't recall congress trying to pass a bill to abolish civil forfeiture without due process under Obama....let alone vetoing such a bill.