ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Article about seizures of property without a trial based upon suspicion of property being a result of illegal activity. This has always bothered me, but you don't see much note of it in the press. Now there is a case going to the USSC. Hopefully this is stopped:
The “innocent until proven guilty” concept is at the very heart of our legal system. Government ought not be able to exact punishment for a crime until proof has been established, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of one’s peers.
But this foundational principle of justice has been tossed out the window in recent years, at least in one realm, that of civil or asset forfeiture. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize more than $1 billion worth of property each year — cash, cars, boats, etc. — that is alleged to have been used in the furtherance of a crime.
The problem is that police don’t have to prove a crime has actually been committed in order to seize someone’s property. Or that the owner of the property committed said crime.
The ACLU and CATO Institute (not too common being on the same side) are on the side of innocent until proven guilty, many state and local government have filed briefs supporting this practice.
The people vs the government. Like the question asked by Sotomayor referenced in the article. Hopefully the court does the right thing here unlike Kelo...
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
It's an interesting issue. We often read of this type of thing happening to drug dealers. Are there other groups who are more sympathetic that are victims of this injustice? I think one of the challenges for the Supreme Court will be to find a ruling that does not allow every single person who was a victim of this type of injustice to sue.
So if a cop thinks you look like a drug dealer and you are driving a Porsche and have 20K it's ok for them to seize the cash and car even if you are never convicted or even charged????
WOW.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
So if a cop thinks you look like a drug dealer and you are driving a Porsche and have 20K it's ok for them to seize the cash and car even if you are never convicted or even charged????
WOW.
WOW is right there captain Strawman.
Since when does a cop's word automatically provide the preponderance of the evidence?
__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.
The State of Illinois, like most states and the federal government, authorizes police officers to seize vehicles and cash involved in certain drug crimes. Even if the owner of the vehicle did not participate in the crime, the Illinois Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act allows the State to wait as many as 187 days before filing forfeiture proceedings, which test the legitimacy of the state’s seizure in court. This forfeiture proceeding may then be delayed indefinitely for “good cause,” or if there is a related proceeding in criminal court.
The six plaintiffs in Alvarez v. Smith – three of whom were never charged with a crime – allege that their cars or money were seized, without a warrant, for months or years without any judicial hearing related to the continued detention of their property. They brought a lawsuit contending that the Illinois statute is unconstitutional, and the Seventh Circuit agreed. It held that because there was considerable delay between the seizure and the forfeiture proceeding, the plaintiffs must be afforded an informal hearing in the interim to determine whether there is probable cause to detain the property.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
So if a cop thinks you look like a drug dealer and you are driving a Porsche and have 20K it's ok for them to seize the cash and car even if you are never convicted or even charged????
WOW.
I agree it's an injustice, but I know the Supremes consider practical aspects of a case. There were a few FOI cases that were won or lost based on the the practical issue of whether the FBI had the resources to comply with requests for information, not whether or not the law required them to do so. But, I do agree that the law needs to be changed, but usually one is motivated to support or oppose something because of a sympathetic group or story. While I think the Supremes should outlaw these kinds of seizures, I don't have strong feelings on this issue because I have not read any stories that have personally resonated with me.
So if a cop thinks you look like a drug dealer and you are driving a Porsche and have 20K it's ok for them to seize the cash and car even if you are never convicted or even charged????
WOW.
No, No, NO, No.............................at least in federal law, I can't speak about Illonios, the home of everything corupt.
As for federal seizures, they are all covered under CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act). If you are CONVICTED of selling drugs out of your car, then your car was used in the furtherance of the crime, THAT YOU WERE CONVICTED OF, and it can be siezed by the government. Now most times, the vehicle is not worth the storage costs, so they are rarely siezed. Now if you are CONVICTED of selling drugs out of your house, then your house can be indicted and will be "on trail" along with you. ALL REAL PROPERTY SEIZURES MUST GO THOURGH THE COURTS!!
What most likely happend to these people is that the lent their cars to someone, and that person got arrested, then you have to come up with an "innocent owner" defense, and prove that you actually did not know that your buddy was going to sell drugs out of your car, house, etc...
Asset forfieture is a real bonus and a real deterent (because if they could keep the money and stuff that they buy with their illegal proceeds, they would gladly do the jail time) in fighting crime. Plus the money, vehicles seized go right back into a seperate fund for LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY, and most undercover cars were seized from criminals. Asset forfeiture is a very good thing as it deters crime, and keeps the costs of fighting crime down.
__________________
The Jets look like a Super Bowl contender right now about as much as Rosie O’Donnell looks like a threat for the Miss America crown. -NY Post 12/19/2011
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... ALL REAL PROPERTY SEIZURES MUST GO THOURGH THE COURTS!!
Asset forfieture is a real bonus and a real deterent (because if they could keep the money and stuff that they buy with their illegal proceeds, they would gladly do the jail time) in fighting crime. Plus the money, vehicles seized go right back into a seperate fund for LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY, and most undercover cars were seized from criminals. Asset forfeiture is a very good thing as it deters crime, and keeps the costs of fighting crime down.
It's a real bonus, alright.
Since when is it OK (I know "since when" - right about the time the bogus "War on Drugs" began) for a government agency to fund itself using any other means than the public funds made available by the civilian government and allocated as the People see as appropriate?
Now the cops can just obtain warrants, take people's stuff and hold it while "due process" is conducted through the courts? Why should that be an option? So someone's house could be held up in a civil action even after the victim of the police has been cleared of any wrong-doing. You think that's OK? Why the hell should anyone's property be out of their control for their use as they see fit?
What makes you say it is a deterrent? Do you have any links to any studies supporting that claim?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proven guilty
Linear Mode
