Asset Forfeiture

Forums: Legal, Asset Forfeiture, Constitution
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I believe the U.S. Constitution provides that revenues be paid into the U.S. Treasury and disbursements only as authorized by Congress.

However, when a local police department seizes cash from a criminal drug dealer, asset forfeiture laws allow the local police department to keep the money.

Is this constitutional?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 1,763 • Replies: 8

[+3] - hawkeye10 - 01/21/2015[quote] Violations of due process are very common ways to challenge rulings or legislation. It seems to me that anyone with a half-way decent lawyer would challenge such seizures on this basis...

@gollum,

My immediate reaction for what it's worth, not much around here, is no. Indeed I was astounded

0 Replies

@gollum,

What dalehileman said. On top of that, this seizure is executed upon assets of people who have not yet been convicted of, or even indicted for, any crimes! All it takes is a police raid on premises where some drugs are discovered. It seems to me to be not only unconstitutional but downright evil. That nobody has yet attempted to bring a complaint regarding this practice before the US Supreme Court is also surprising.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

See The New Yorker, August 12 and 19, 2013, "Taken" by Sarah Stillman.

0 Replies

Quote:

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday that the Justice Department will no longer participate in a controversial program that has long allowed police departments around the country to seize cash and property from people suspected of criminal activity, then send 20 percent of its dollar value to the federal government under a so-called “equitable sharing” program and pump the remaining 80 percent into their own operating budgets.

Holder’s decision to halt the program is being applauded by critics of the practice known as civil asset forfeiture. But experts warn that it’s not enough: While it’s nice that the federal government is washing its hands of “equitable sharing,” law enforcement agencies can be expected to continue seizing people’s cash and other valuables until there is comprehensive reform at the state level.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/01/will_eric_holder_s_civil_forfeiture_announcement_change_anything.html

30 years later some folks start to notice how abusive the state is, and talk about it. The fact that they survived for 30 days is outrageous. We Americans are certainly into our sadomasochism.

0 Replies

The first paragraph of the Fourteenth amendment reads, in its entirety:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)

Violations of due process are very common ways to challenge rulings or legislation. It seems to me that anyone with a half-way decent lawyer would challenge such seizures on this basis alone, if no other.

1 Reply

Local authorities have been seizing vehicles used in drug crimes for decades. In fact, in California, many of them are repainted and used as police vehicles. It makes it hard to recognize patrol cars as they come upon you. I remember seeing several repainted Mustang patrol cars when I was living in the Bay Area.

Looking around, it appears the California Supreme Court overturned these vehicle seizure laws in 2007. I don't know what the status is for other states.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/27/local/me-seizure27

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Violations of due process are very common ways to challenge rulings or legislation. It seems to me that anyone with a half-way decent lawyer would challenge such seizures on this basis alone, if no other.

Great, so you would have been the guy telling the peasants "it does not matter if your lord is abusive because you can always petition the king"

The wealthy that the king liked could do that not everyone else, it would have taken a week off the land to travel to court to get this done, the king could always say no for what ever reason, and the lord is probably going to be pissed after ......but hey, all of this is no problem according to you.

There is no "But, But, But" when citizens are being abused at the hands of the state.

1 Reply

NSFW (view)

@hawkeye10,

Go f*ck yourself, you babbling idiot. Don't you dare take a superior moral tone with me, Rapist Boy. You're an idiot.

0 Replies

Asset Forfeiture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know