http://www.theagitator.com/2012/02/10/big-forfeiture-case-to-be-heard-in-federal-court-on-monday/

God bless our police state and our uniformed overlords.

2/10/2012 2:30:16 PM

Its a frightening thought that they'd even try this, but no way the courts let it go through.

2/10/2012 3:15:08 PM

I certainly hope they lose, but the courts have been extremely kind to governments seizing private property lately, look at how far they've extended imminent domain. I really don't understand how civil asset forfeiture isn't a clear violation of the 4th amendment, but apparently it isn't. We'll see how this plays out.

2/10/2012 3:32:59 PM

Quote :

"I certainly hope they lose, but the courts have been extremely kind to governments seizing private property lately, look at how far they've extended imminent domain. I really don't understand how civil asset forfeiture isn't a clear violation of the 4th amendment, but apparently it isn't. We'll see how this plays out. "

Got any case references so we can see the court rulings and figure out what they were thinking?

2/10/2012 4:21:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#The_trend_towards_civil_forfeiture

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/02/take_the_money_and_run.html

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3114&Itemid=165

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=13888

The basic principle is that the property is guilty and you now have to prove that it is not. It's an interesting legal concept that has essentially been used to confiscate property from citizens without them actually doing anything illegal. Criminal asset forfeiture requires that there is a crime committed and the property seized was involved (seizing a drug dealers car or house is very common), but under civil asset forfeiture the police just take your property and you then have to prove that you have the superior claim to it, often at significant cost due to legal fees. Laws further provide that the police get the proceeds of these seizures, basically giving them the incentive to rob citizens.

2/10/2012 4:52:35 PM

Not sure about other states, but if law enforcement seizes your property in North Carolina its most likely under nuisance abatement laws. To a build a nuisance abatement takes months and the government has a pretty high burden of proof. These cases rarely come up and when they do it because the police have hundreds of documented calls to a particular property involving violent crime and/or drugs (most go hand in hand).

An example near me, in five years the police responded to one residence over 300 times for for serious crimes and the houses were seized and ultimately I believe demolished. These homes were rentals, and not like grandma and grandpa were put out.

The other side of asset forfeiture (read cash) comes from criminal interdiction. These aren't as complex but it takes a well trained officer to seize cash. The seizure has to be authorized by the feds (the DEA) and the officer has to articulate that the money has or is going to be used in conjunction with narcotics or criminal activity.

Almost all cases I have seen revolve around the driver/passenger having extensive drug histories (arrests, etc) and other factors which require hundreds of hours of training to be able to testify to.

There is also limits; a seizure can only take place w/o drug evidence located in car if it is over $XXXXX dollars and w/ drugs its much lower.

2/10/2012 5:10:14 PM

Quote :

"These aren't as complex but it takes a well trained officer to seize cash."

yep. those police officers in that little texas town mentioned above were really well trained. "Give us the cash or you go to prison, bitch." Yep, that's some damned fine training.

Quote :

"There is also limits; a seizure can only take place w/o drug evidence located in car if it is over $XXXXX dollars"

How in the fuck can you say that with a straight face? "Hey, we don't have any evidence that you have any drugs or have any connection to drugs, but you've got money, so you are guilty. Give us that money"

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

2/10/2012 5:34:09 PM

You really do have a problem with reading comprehension. You should get with your first-grade teacher about it.

2/10/2012 5:38:45 PM

Again, there's a difference between criminal asset forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. Often local law enforcement will bring in federal agencies to avoid dealing with state or local laws, which are frequently more restrictive. In return the federal agency will reward some portion of the forfeiture to the state or local agency. Most forfeiture cases now are done as civil forfeiture, not criminal.

It's a racket, pure and simple. Check out the "Policing for Profit" report that is in one of the links above.

2/10/2012 5:39:31 PM

Quote :

"How in the fuck can you say that with a straight face? "Hey, we don't have any evidence that you have any drugs or have any connection to drugs, but you've got money, so you are guilty. Give us that money""

Happens all the time; guy driving a rental car that isn't his, on a one day trip, w/ $100,000 heated sealed in bags in the trunk but he has no criminal record. Says the money isn't his so its seized if you have the training to articulate the facts (this example is pretty simplistic).

I'm not defending nor supporting any viewpoint because I carry bias; just giving examples of how it works or should work.

2/10/2012 5:46:35 PM

so, we don't know whose money it actually is. better just take it. fuck proving anything illegal is actually happening

2/10/2012 5:47:29 PM

If they didn't want their hotel seized by the government they shouldn't have let criminals stay there.

2/10/2012 6:06:56 PM

2/10/2012 6:40:04 PM

lol, I stopped there because that was the exact point I couldn't go any further without it sounding completely ridiculous.

2/10/2012 7:50:55 PM

the sad thing is that there are people who would honestly say that

2/10/2012 8:16:30 PM

This is like if the government tried to shut down file sharing in general because people were swapping copyrighted material.

Oh wait.

2/11/2012 2:45:43 PM

Quote :

"Happens all the time; guy driving a rental car that isn't his, on a one day trip, w/ $100,000 heated sealed in bags in the trunk but he has no criminal record. Says the money isn't his so its seized if you have the training to articulate the facts (this example is pretty simplistic). "

Having money in large amounts is 'suspicious' so pigs will just still steal it because the guy is probably a drug dealer and no one will complain.

Quote :

"These homes were rentals, and not like grandma and grandpa were put out. "

"It's ok we only trample on the rights of bad guys LOL"

This idea that people should lose their stuff because they're bad and thus they 'deserve it' is despicable and it makes me so angry that I temporarily wish more cops would get shot by drug dealers.

2/12/2012 11:22:13 AM

Haha you guys think that land or property belongs to the citizens. All objects are the property of the state. We are allowed to hold them temporarily at the King's pleasure. Sometimes the King even gives your land to Mexico.
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1814881.html

2/12/2012 7:22:29 PM