A decent video commentary on civil forfeiture

I've always been against civil forfeiture, as a strict Constitutionalist. I cannot understand how anyone could think that having one lose one's property without even a charge, much less a conviction is moral at all much less Constitutional.

The Constitution says:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

I can see the argument for forfeiture of property AFTER conviction, as there is due process, but not without.

One must beware that , "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take away everything you have."

a reply to: NavyDoc

On top of civil forfeiture, we also have A-holes who try to use imminent domain to seize property and line their own pockets. Often they will try to use/manipulate civil forfeiture laws to get what they want for pennies on the dollar.

I've been watching Last Week Tonight and I highly recommend it. The bit about Philadelphia also brought to mind the fact that Pennsylvania now has warrantless vehicle searches too — makes it that much easier for the cops to be highway bandits!

a reply to: NavyDoc

I watched this the other day and it was quite good. John Oliver has been really dishing out a lot of stuff that really needs a little exposure to the airwaves. Glad to see this one being shared as it is pretty shocking and I also agree--incredibly unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was frequently written to attempt to protect property owners from abuse (heck even the 1st Amendment had property owners in mind) so to see this go on in this country is pretty baffling. I think the way they create a loophole is due to charges not being filed against those property owners. It seems to be a loophole for many questionable activities such as "detaining" v. arrest.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: NavyDoc

On top of civil forfeiture, we also have A-holes who try to use imminent domain to seize property and line their own pockets. Often they will try to use/manipulate civil forfeiture laws to get what they want for pennies on the dollar.

This as well. Abuse of eminent domain like in the New Haven, CT. case are in direct opposite of the intent of the Constitution. Taking a land because a road is urgently needed is radically a different concept than taking land to sell to a developer who will bring in more tax revenue.

a reply to: NavyDoc

F&S for the OP!

I too saw that episode of "Last Week Tonight" and I was amazed. Not only by the amount of money being seized from people without even charging them for a crime, but also by the manner in which some police depts. were allowed to spend the money on whatever they wanted.

Wow! No incentive for corruption there!

From what I can tell, we can probably thank the "War on Drugs" for this minor inconvenience, as it appears to have emerged out of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 which was signed into law by then President Ronald Reagan as another tool to thwart the cash flow of drug dealers.

But then we have to take a closer look at who I call "The Real Culprits" in this case, which are the state & local police depts. across this nation. It is they who get to keep the lion's share of the proceeds and it is they who have the biggest incentive to abuse the intent of the statute.

In some cases like North Carolina, even to the point of using the federal statute to completely circumvent their own state laws governing asset forfeitures.

If I'm not mistaken, in Utah the voters overwhelmingly voted to enact laws restricting such practices and they were effective too. So effective if fact, that the law enforcement associations within the state lobbied their legislature to overturn the laws despite the will of the voters.

Now, it appears that even John Yoder and Brad Cates, who headed the Asset Forfeiture Office at the DOJ under Reagan and who were heavily involved in the creation of the law, are now describing it as "complete corruption" and fundamentally at odds with our judicial system. They are now calling for it to be "abolished."

Just goes to show what our law enforcement agencies will do if given enough rope. They'll hang each and every one of us, by the ankles that is! Until we are completely penniless, powerless and under their control.

We should all be writing our congressional representatives about this issue, ASAP!

Just thought I'd point this out from the Constitution too.

Article 1 sec. 9.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

What is a Bill of Attainder? Quote from Wikipedia.

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were used in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures. However, the use of these bills eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly separation of powers, the right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by the United States Constitution as well as the constitutions of all 50 US states.

Land of the free my big booty.

originally posted by: Flatfish
If I'm not mistaken, in Utah the voters overwhelmingly voted to enact laws restricting such practices and they were effective too. So effective if fact, that the law enforcement associations within the state lobbied their legislature to overturn the laws despite the will of the voters.

Isn't this the definition of a Tyrannical government?

We should all be writing our congressional representatives about this issue, ASAP!

I live in DC were we have "taxation without representation". No way for me to do as you ask since I am a second class citizen in my own country.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

eh; tyrannical implies singleminded purpose, like a dictatorship or something.

what we're seeing is more of a clusterF^ck of various interests, public/private, state/local governments.

so more incompetent.

and honestly. the only way it's going to be fixed is through fixing government. "muh free market", is no solution here, or in many other situations, technically civil forfeiture is constitutional, as it is not defined as a "punishment" by the supreme court..
www.fed-soc.org...
frankly, I don't support constitutional fundamentalism, simply because it lacks historical precedent(as in the supreme court has interpreted and re-interpreted the constitution since at least the turn of the 19th century (1800-1819)), and makes a false assumption that the founders were infallible, and that the interpretation of the fundamentalists is also infaliable.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I've always been against civil forfeiture, as a strict Constitutionalist. I cannot understand how anyone could think that having one lose one's property without even a charge, much less a conviction is moral at all much less Constitutional.

It's a tough issue and on some level seems to have an actual need to exist as an option for the state. The very people who wrote the constitution enacted forfeiture in the early 1800's, mostly as a way to seize naval vessels. That however isn't to say that it's being used by way too many for way too little right now.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

eh; tyrannical implies singleminded purpose, like a dictatorship or something.

what we're seeing is more of a clusterF^ck of various interests, public/private, state/local governments.

so more incompetent.

and honestly. the only way it's going to be fixed is through fixing government. "muh free market", is no solution here, or in many other situations, technically civil forfeiture is constitutional, as it is not defined as a "punishment" by the supreme court..
www.fed-soc.org...
frankly, I don't support constitutional fundamentalism, simply because it lacks historical precedent(as in the supreme court has interpreted and re-interpreted the constitution since at least the turn of the 19th century (1800-1819)), and makes a false assumption that the founders were infallible, and that the interpretation of the fundamentalists is also infaliable.

Government caused the problem. Why should they be expected to "fix" it other than having us vote in people who would strike down this law.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

eh; tyrannical implies singleminded purpose, like a dictatorship or something.

what we're seeing is more of a clusterF^ck of various interests, public/private, state/local governments.

so more incompetent.

and honestly. the only way it's going to be fixed is through fixing government. "muh free market", is no solution here, or in many other situations, technically civil forfeiture is constitutional, as it is not defined as a "punishment" by the supreme court..
www.fed-soc.org...
frankly, I don't support constitutional fundamentalism, simply because it lacks historical precedent(as in the supreme court has interpreted and re-interpreted the constitution since at least the turn of the 19th century (1800-1819)), and makes a false assumption that the founders were infallible, and that the interpretation of the fundamentalists is also infaliable.

SCOTUS has got it wrong before, most notably with Jim Crow and Dred Scott. SCOTUS did an end dance around Civil forfeiture by saying it was not "punishment" and therefor did not violate the double jeopardy clause but obviously it is a punishment. What they did was a semantics dance to justify the government's position.

Additionally, we are not talk about civil forfeiture after conviction but rather forfeiture that occurs without a charge or a conviction. "US vs a wad of cash" for example. One could see the unconstitutionality as well as the unjust nature of taking property without conviction of a crime quite plainly, I'd hope.

a reply to: NavyDoc
eh;
we the people/voters decide who's in government, so really it's the collective fault of the american people. We get duped into allowing people who approve of NAFTA to be passed.
We get people chanting "keep your government hands off our medicare",
or you get people defending torture due to a politician's party.
people defending all sorts of nonsense, other people making up nonsense.

Yes the supreme court has made some pretty reprehensible rulings in the past, but they've eventually overruled many of those decisions which is the point. Societal attitudes (or attitudes of the influential) change with time.

what you don't seem to get is that there is no such thing as objective interpretation, You interpret the supreme court as violating the constitution.. because they're actions, go against your own interpretation of the constitution.

a reply to: NavyDoc
This thread is a couple of years old, but I am just beginning to look into Civil Forfeiture. How does it work as far as houses go? I read about a couple losing their entire property, because their son was caught selling $40 of heroine. Do they only forfeit when drugs are being SOLD, or what if someone living in a structure at your address gets caught with personal use drugs, is that cause for forfeiture?