Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem to misunderstand this case as a challenge to civil asset forfeiture itself, which it was not; the plaintiffs simply asserted the Due Process requires a separate preliminary hearing in addition to the already timely hearing requirement -- basically, an even more timely forfeiture hearing before a timely forfeiture hearing. In the 230-some years that we've had civil asset forfeiture laws, the courts have never held such a thing and there was no reason to expect they were going to suddenly start doing so today.
One was without her car for a year; the other for 20 months. Yeah, it didn't help neither responded to the initial forfeiture hearing notices and waited a year or more to finally raise an "innocent owner" defense. Once they finally filed their "innocent owner" defenses, one got her car back within 5 weeks, the other within 6.
And if you want a silver lining in this case, read the Gorsuch/Thomas concurrence where they basically say "asset forfeiture is being abused, bring us a more substantive case and you'll probably have 5 justices willing to do something about it."
If there had not been illegal drugs in the cars, then the cars wouldn't have been seized to begin with. These people are not victims.
Whilst I agree that serious organised criminals should have their assets seized, I think the police should have to go through the proper legal channels.
In most countries this involves applying for a criminal assets seizure order when some one is found guilty in a Criminal Case, and which is something a Judge can consider.
Alternatively some countries have an Unexplained Wealth Order, where an individual is asked to account for their wealth, with failure to do so resulting in the case going before the High Court based on the balance of probabilities.
Either way it is for the Courts to decide and not the police or other authorities, although authorities related to the collection of taxes or investigation of fraud can actually have far more far reaching powers than the police.
In the UK those involved in such cases include the police including the specialised City of London police as well as New Scotland Yard (Met Police) and the regional organised crime units, other major agencies involved in such cases include the National Crime Agency (NCA), Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and both the Special Compliance Office (SCO) and Fraud Investigation Service (FIS) of His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). However any decision regarding asset seizure asset to either go through the Criminal Courts or the Civil Courts (High Court).
"It's about close adherence to existing law", how is that not mere authoritarianism? I have absolutely zero doubt that Alabama's finest go by "existing law" when they enrich their departments. The case challenges the practices in place due to "existing law". That's kinda why the Supreme Court exists.
As some may know, US police has a very wide berth to grab someone's stuff or money if they think it somehow attaches to a crime - a practice known as "asset forfeiture". In a particularly interesting twist, some police departments are allowed to use income from this practice as part of their operating budget, which of course provides massive motivation for them to grab what they can. If Sheriff Bubba finds you with a big wad of cash, he can decide on the spot that it's probably crime-related, and - yoink.
The interesting bit: There's no legal proceeding involved ahead of the confiscation. It's on the citizen to start proceedings to get their money or property back. A process that can take months, even years.
A case recently went in front of the Supreme Court - Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama. Two women had their cars taken from them because other people were arrested for drug offenses while driving them. One was without her car for a year, another for 20 months. Neither woman was a suspect. Seems a bit at odds with the Constitution, no? Not according to this court, anyway.
All those pesky rights on part of the citizens get in the way of the government!
I fully agree. Asset forfeiture laws are wrong in every sense of the word, but right now AF is legal under the law. And I don't know of anyone, state or federal and on either side of the aisle who is trying to stop this practice.
That is because it is so profitable. Corruption, pure and simple.
You seem to misunderstand this case as a challenge to civil asset forfeiture itself, which it was not; the plaintiffs simply asserted the Due Process requires a separate preliminary hearing in addition to the already timely hearing requirement -- basically, an even more timely forfeiture hearing before a timely forfeiture hearing. In the 230-some years that we've had civil asset forfeiture laws, the courts have never held such a thing and there was no reason to expect they were going to suddenly start doing so today.
One was without her car for a year; the other for 20 months. Yeah, it didn't help neither responded to the initial forfeiture hearing notices and waited a year or more to finally raise an "innocent owner" defense. Once they finally filed their "innocent owner" defenses, one got her car back within 5 weeks, the other within 6.
And if you want a silver lining in this case, read the Gorsuch/Thomas concurrence where they basically say "asset forfeiture is being abused, bring us a more substantive case and you'll probably have 5 justices willing to do something about it."
I am not even sure the SCOTUS libs are for asset forfeiture. A good case could be ruled 9-0 against AF.
Asset forfeiture under the guise of law enforcement has been out of control for decades and the alleged "war on drugs" has made it worse. What I find remarkable is that this nonsense goes on unabated while our "leaders" distract the low-information public with red herrings like the "war on women" (there is no such thing), LGBTQ rights (they already have the same protections as the rest of us), DEI, the climate crisis, and a host of other non-issues. Meanwhile, the police can take your assets with zero probable cause and no due process. Our priorities are seriously whacked.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,009 posts, read 12,794,550 times
Reputation: 10634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
That is because it is so profitable. Corruption, pure and simple.
Yep.
Basically the first time I'd really paid any attention to it was decades ago, when one of the network shows like 20/20 or another, I can't remember which, had talked about the plight of one woman who had lost her car to this.
The gist of it is, she'd bought a used car and shortly after buying it she went on a trip that took her through another state. When she'd gotten to the other state she'd been stopped and apparently was asked if they could search her car. I don't know why the search since she never appeared to be a druggie or criminal. But she agreed to the search and the only thing LE came up with was a hidden compartment that had been installed underneath the car, which was completely empty. Apparently, it had been installed by one of the former owners and she didn't even know it was there. Even though the compartment was empty and she'd just bought the car, they impounded it because to them it was a car that had been used to smuggle drugs or other contraband with. They took her car and left her stranded in another state ... and then they sold her car right out from underneath her.
I am not even sure the SCOTUS libs are for asset forfeiture. A good case could be ruled 9-0 against AF.
The 5 justices who have signaled their willingness to review the scope of asset forfeiture are Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Asset forfeiture won't go away entirely, but at least 5 justices have signaled their willingness to rein in the scope of its application.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
