It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.newyorker.com...
www.theregister.co.uk...
Civil Asset Forfeiture is the policy by which law enforcement agencies are allowed to seize property and money on suspicion of its connection with criminal wrongdoing. It does not require a conviction or even evidence on the part of the seizing entities (as it is considered a civil matter), and the defendants in the case must prove in a civil court that they were not a part of whatever criminal activity the seizing entities wish to target. As is almost always the case, the cost to return this property is severe to the defendant, and in many cases the seized assets are 'liquidated' and unable to be reimbursed before the defendants can prove they are not guilty of any criminal connection.
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: butcherguy
How about just not allowing the state and federal government to seize property without first proving guilt?!?!
How about stopping using police officers as profit generators and transfer them back to protecting and serving.....
I bet if we ended the war on drugs and stopped allowing the funds police departments confiscate to be used by the PD . All the problems with police dry up over night...
They go right back to being the hero’s of the community , instead of tax collectors with guns.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Wayfarer
There hasn't been a "small effort" to reign in forfeiture ridiculousness. It's been a massive effort. In the last two years over half the states in the country have redone their forfeiture laws or removed them entirely.
The problem is that the federal law has, and continues to have, enormous loopholes in it that allow agencies to bypass their state laws entirely so long as the Fed gets their cut of it.
To be clear: I think forfeiture has it's uses. I think it's ripe for abuse. But the problem has been addressed at the state level time and time again. Give credit where it's due.
so why give credit to any of the crooked bastards?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: notsure1
so why give credit to any of the crooked bastards?
Because I'm not a simple-minded jackass that can't see the forest for the trees. States have been trying to handle the issue for years and the Feds have been screwing them every time they try to. I'm not going to blame state legislatures when the Fed is actively working against them.