You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Freedom Alert! Your help is desperately needed to save due process.
Government doesn't put much stock in due process anymore. Just look at the asset forfeiture laws.
Government doesn't put much stock in due process anymore. Just look at the asset forfeiture laws.
this is nothing like civil forfeiture laws.
It is in the sense that they violate due process. With civil forfeiture laws, your assets are seized before you are found guilty and may not be returned even if you are found innocent or the charges are dropped. While the laws may be different, the thing they have in common is doing away with due process and the presumption of innocence.
That's because it is a civil matter separate from your criminal matter. There is nothing that negates due process with civil forfeiture. The way they get you with civil forfeiture is by scheduling your civil hearing for before your criminal hearing so if you go to your civil hearing and try to get your drug money back then you have to admit that is your drug money and then they can use that as evidence against you in your criminal case. So people wisely skip their civil hearings and forfeit that property, this is why there is such a big difference between the number of seizures and convictions, it certainly does not mean those people were innocent, just that the state didn't have a criminal case they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt against them. There is nothing wrong with this process or these laws, the reason it is a problem for some people is because we choose to prohibit drugs.
But they seize your money without proving you have drugs or without finding drugs in many cases. There have been a number of documented cases where money was seized just because the police thought it was suspicious that someone was carrying a large quantity of cash or for other absurd reasons. It doesn't matter that they had a legitimate reason for carrying it. They MAY be able to get it back but it is often a long and expensive process. Just because they call it 'civil' doesn't change the nature and intent of what 'due process' is. This is still the government seizing your property without due process or really any process at all. Why should the government be allowed to seize your property without convicting you of a crime? Now if the government had to sue you in civil court in order to take the property in the first place, perhaps it would be different.
Sure, if property seizures only occurred when an actual crime had been committed (i.e. they actually find drugs in your car or with the cash) then perhaps you have a point. But suspicion, justified or not, is enough for seizure in many cases.
it is neither a long nor expensive process, especially if you really are innocent, just go to a hearing, but you do have to attend the hearing and if you are actually guilty then you can be forced to testify because it is not a criminal case, but that testimony can be used in your criminal case.
It's like OJ, he was never found guilty of murder but he was found to be responsible for killing Nicole and Ron Goldman. Nobody thinks him losing all his shit is an injustice.
I am sure there are cases where the police overstepped their bounds but if you were not charged with any crime then it should be real easy to get your stuff back. Those cases are certainly not the norm though. Mostly it is people who don't get their drug money back.
The real problem is not the seizure laws, like a lot of other problems, the real problem is that drugs are prohibited.
I agree that drugs being prohibited is a problem. But I completely disagree that the government being able to seize your property without proving you guilty of something is ok. It's not ok and I don't know why anybody would think that it is (except of course the authorities doing the seizing). I can post endless links to stories about people who unjustly had their property seized (no, they weren't actually using or selling drugs) and had difficulty getting their property back. The laws vary state to state and it depends on whether there is federal involvement too. Some places are worse than others. Just because drug laws are a problem doesn't mean that seizure laws are not.
The government can take your property even when you have not committed a crime or done anything wrong. They just have to follow legal procedures. I would love to see some cases where no one was allegedly using or selling drugs and property was still seized and not returned. All the cases people seem to get hyped about are when someone's granny's house gets seized because her grandson gang banger is selling drugs out of there.
Any law can be abused, when they are using siezures as a their sole revenue stream or taking property from truly innocent people then that just means it is being abused, I am sure there some jurisdictions out there where they are corrupt, those corrupt jurisdictions need to be held to account.
"Legal" includes following Constitutional law and the 4th Amendment.
The problem is that the laws are often written such that there is nothing to prevent abuse. Some law enforcement officer merely has to say he is suspicious of some crime. Often just having a bunch of cash is a good enough reason for them to be "suspicious" even if you have a legitimate reason for carrying a large quantity of cash (and you shouldn't need a reason at all). Not only do you not have be convicted of a crime, you don't even have to be charged with one. If your property is being seized without being convicted of or even charged with a crime then your Constitutional rights are being violated. The government does not have a right to arbitrarily seize your property. If your property is seized then guilt is presumed. Any law that violates the presumption of innocence violates due process. Here's just a few examples of abuses. There are many, many more.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/
http://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cfd001a6311f
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/civil-asset-forfeiture-police-abuse-clarence-thomas/
http://garydhalbert.com/2017/12/14/civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-power/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/09/29/4-startling-forfeiture-abuse-stories/
https://www.aclunc.org/article/read-stories-civil-asset-forfeiture-victims
The civil asset forfeiture laws themselves are not being abused (though Constitutional law certainly is), this is what such laws allow. Why would you defend laws that allow this behavior?