Civil Asset Forfeiture

#1
WooPigSooie

WooPigSooie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
746
Likes
136
#1
May we please check our partisan hats at the door as we discuss this obvious problem?

Every year, federal and state law enforcement agents seize millions of dollars from civilians during traffic stops, simply by asserting that they believe the money is connected to some illegal activity and without ever pursuing criminal charges. Under federal law and the laws of most states, they are entitled to keep most (and sometimes all) of the money and property they seize.

Some of you may not like John Oliver but this is an interesting topic that was on Last Week Tonight recently

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture

forfeiture1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
Pre conviction forfeiture should be ruled unconstitutional. It will not be though, way to popular with LEO.
 
#4
#4
WooPigSooie said:
It is unconstitutional .. quite blatantly
Click to expand...

We both agree, it's just that our legal opinion means squat.

I was once told (by a questionable legal advisor) that if ever faced with a situation, make them take you to jail. Refuse to cooperate, be a minor nuisance, whatever it takes because then your property becomes evidence in a criminal case and can't be officially seized until conviction. You would at least get a day in court where the officer has to explain why they stopped you in the first place.

Again this came from a lawyer of questionable ability so I doubt I would ever follow his advice.
 
#5
#5
hog88 said:
We both agree, it's just that our legal opinion means squat.

I was once told (by a questionable legal advisor) that if ever faced with a situation, make them take you to jail. Refuse to cooperate, be a minor nuisance, whatever it takes because then your property becomes evidence in a criminal case and can't be officially seized until conviction. You would at least get a day in court where the officer has to explain why they stopped you in the first place.

Again this came from a lawyer of questionable ability so I doubt I would ever follow his advice.
Click to expand...

LG?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
If you have something seized it is based on probable cause finding as to connection to criminal activity. You are entitled to a preliminary hearing very quickly, and at that initial hearing you can challenge the procedure for the forfeiture, then at a later evidentiary hearing the seizing agency has the burden to prove the connection to a qualifying criminal act or enterprise.

This is one of those things where some person who had something seized throws out a wild story about how unfair it is, but does not bother to inform people of the FACTS concerning their own situation, or the process used to resolve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
If you have something seized it is based on probable cause finding as to connection to criminal activity. You are entitled to a preliminary hearing very quickly, and at that initial hearing you can challenge the procedure for the forfeiture, then at a later evidentiary hearing the seizing agency has the burden to prove the connection to a qualifying criminal act or enterprise.

This is one of those things where some person who had something seized throws out a wild story about how unfair it is, but does not bother to inform people of the FACTS concerning their own situation, or the process used to resolve it.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, if there is enough probable cause to seize, there should be enough probably cause to arrest. What...there is just enough probable cause to take property that may be involved in a criminal act, but not enough to arrest? GTFO. It should be laughable anybody would consider that constitutional. It's state sanctioned theft, plain and simple. I would also argue it is placing undue burden on the defendent to have to go prove his asset is innocent. This whole thing is preposterous.

**** your wild stories. I don't care how wild the story is, asset forfeiture without an arrest is unfair and unconstitutional. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
Try to find news channel 5 out of nashville and the special they did on it. Phil Williams did a great job on it
 
#12
#12
rjd970 said:
The way I see it, if there is enough probable cause to seize, there should be enough probably cause to arrest. What...there is just enough probable cause to take property that may be involved in a criminal act, but not enough to arrest? GTFO. It should be laughable anybody would consider that constitutional. It's state sanctioned theft, plain and simple. I would also argue it is placing undue burden on the defendent to have to go prove his asset is innocent. This whole thing is preposterous.

**** your wild stories. I don't care how wild the story is, asset forfeiture without an arrest is unfair and unconstitutional. Period.
Click to expand...


Civil forfeiture is a separate action from a criminal case. Many people are criminally prosecuted and nothing seized. Some have things seized but are not prosecuted.

While they have in common some criminal action, it does not mean that they are the same thing.

If for example the police find a house set up to grow marijuana, they can seize the house because it is an instrumentality of the crime, even if the people who were doing it cannot necessarily be proven to be guilty. Maybe they weren't on premises at the time. The owner can raise the innocent owner defense -- I didn't know. Ok, and that's what a jury is for.

But just because you cannot find someone to charge and convict doesn't mean the property wasn't being used to commit a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Civil forfeiture is a separate action from a criminal case. Many people are criminally prosecuted and nothing seized. Some have things seized but are not prosecuted.

While they have in common some criminal action, it does not mean that they are the same thing.

If for example the police find a house set up to grow marijuana, they can seize the house because it is an instrumentality of the crime, even if the people who were doing it cannot necessarily be proven to be guilty. Maybe they weren't on premises at the time. The owner can raise the innocent owner defense -- I didn't know. Ok, and that's what a jury is for.

But just because you cannot find someone to charge and convict doesn't mean the property wasn't being used to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

If they cannot prosecute then they shouldn't be allowed to seize. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
 
#14
#14
Why should I have to prove I saved $100k in a shoe box if you can't prove otherwise?
 
#15
#15
Whatever happened to that thingy in the constitution about not having to forefit life, liberty, or property without due process?
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Civil forfeiture is a separate action from a criminal case. Many people are criminally prosecuted and nothing seized. Some have things seized but are not prosecuted.

While they have in common some criminal action, it does not mean that they are the same thing.

If for example the police find a house set up to grow marijuana, they can seize the house because it is an instrumentality of the crime, even if the people who were doing it cannot necessarily be proven to be guilty. Maybe they weren't on premises at the time. The owner can raise the innocent owner defense -- I didn't know. Ok, and that's what a jury is for.

But just because you cannot find someone to charge and convict doesn't mean the property wasn't being used to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

In Florida the jury will rule on guilt or innocence of the criminal activity and also on the seized property. They can rule the defendant not guilty but find the seized property did come from illegal activity and allow the police to confiscate.
 
#17
#17
The good citizens of Florida need to vote those bastard politicians out of office.
 
#18
#18
Sandvol said:
In Florida the jury will rule on guilt or innocence of the criminal activity and also on the seized property. They can rule the defendant not guilty but find the seized property did come from illegal activity and allow the police to confiscate.
Click to expand...


Its not the same jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
hog88 said:
If they cannot prosecute then they shouldn't be allowed to seize. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Otherwise this is thinly veiled theft. Plain and simple.
 
#22
#22
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
Whatever happened to that thingy in the constitution about not having to forefit life, liberty, or property without due process?
Click to expand...


The seizure is done based on probable cause. In the vast majority of situations, it is done upon execution of a seizure warrant by a judge, not just some cop running around randomly taking things.

And then, the owner gets a preliminary adversarial hearing, usually very quickly, to challenge the seizure process.

And then, if the property remains seized, the government then has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence -- as in most civil cases -- that the property was the implement of, or proceeds of, criminal activity.

There is due process.

What you hear are the stories by randoms who are mad their stuff got taken. Like the guy in the story here who says his father gave him $2400 to go look for a job in California and some cop seized it. He has multiple opportunities to get it back. And the fact is, if you are in fact an innocent owner you can usually get the seizing agency to look into that and they will return it right away because, if they keep it despite that, they can get stuck having to pay your attorneys' fees and also damages from any lost use of the property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
The seizure is done based on probable cause. In the vast majority of situations, it is done upon execution of a seizure warrant by a judge, not just some cop running around randomly taking things.

And then, the owner gets a preliminary adversarial hearing, usually very quickly, to challenge the seizure process.

And then, if the property remains seized, the government then has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence -- as in most civil cases -- that the property was the implement of, or proceeds of, criminal activity.

There is due process.

What you hear are the stories by randoms who are mad their stuff got taken. Like the guy in the story here who says his father gave him $2400 to go look for a job in California and some cop seized it. He has multiple opportunities to get it back. And the fact is, if you are in fact an innocent owner you can usually get the seizing agency to look into that and they will return it right away because, if they keep it despite that, they can get stuck having to pay your attorneys' fees and also damages from any lost use of the property.
Click to expand...

And how much does this usually cost the person? How many times have you seen the seizing authority get hit with attorney fees and damages?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
hog88 said:
We both agree, it's just that our legal opinion means squat.

I was once told (by a questionable legal advisor) that if ever faced with a situation, make them take you to jail. Refuse to cooperate, be a minor nuisance, whatever it takes because then your property becomes evidence in a criminal case and can't be officially seized until conviction. You would at least get a day in court where the officer has to explain why they stopped you in the first place.

Again this came from a lawyer of questionable ability so I doubt I would ever follow his advice.
Click to expand...
Your instincts are correct. Do not hire that attorney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top