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.

 

Civil Asset Forfeiture - Now that it's increasing: Arguments for it as a Net Positive?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

So is Session's proposal to empower more civil asset forfeiture essentially a feckless claim in states that are actively cracking down on it?




posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

This is just another example of blantant corruption.. police departments have changed from protecting and serving to being profit generators..



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
I don't support it. Law enforcement either needs to prove someone is doing something illegally or step the fk off. I don't get how this has not been challenged and shot down. It is literally guilty until proven innocent.


Because property has no constitutional protections to due process.

Literally the very people who wrote due process into the constitution used asset forfeiture to seize pirate vessels when they couldn't do anything else legally to stop them.

There's going to be a pretty steep hurdle to fully abolish it, but maybe not to narrow it's scope.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wayfarer

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a Constitutional violation as it violates the 4th Amendment. Anyone in favor of Civil Asset Forfeiture should be kicked out of the country for being unpatriotic.


It's not quite that easy unfortunately, because property doesn't have the right to due process. There's certainly merits to challenge it, and I would like to see it abolished, but our legal system does currently allow for asset forfeiture, and even the people who wrote the Constitution used asset forfeiture so there's not even an argument of original intent in there.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The police robbing you because they think you are guilty of a crime is a violation of your own due process and right to property. I cannot reasonably see why anyone honest would support this policy. Though I agree that it isn't easy to get rid of... Sessions is even bringing it back. Someone should go seize his assets.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By charging the property with a crime, you lose your right to that property. You can't shelter a guilty party from the justice system.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Thieving has always been a net positive for thieves. Government included.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

I'm simple minded because I recognize that more than half the states in the country have taken steps to curb forfeiture and that the Feds have been actively working against their efforts to do so?

Okay buddy. Whatever makes you feel better.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That is a stupid loop hole. Civil Asset forfeiture ruins innocent people's lives. It isn't fair and is totally authoritarian. Like I said, I don't support it one iota.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

They're certainly trying to, yea. The link in my initial comment highlights a few states that have passed legislation specifically about the Federal loopholes. Lots of other states have passed laws that outline when an agency can take and keep a forfeiture and when they can't.

So the problem remains that the Fed then shows up and says "hey that law doesn't say anything about turning the case over to us, and we'll give you some of the money back." So until more states specifically address that loophole, it's going to keep being used. Or until the bill that is currently making it's way through Congress finally gets enacted (presuming it makes it that far), whichever comes first. That bill received a huge amount of bipartisan support, so there's certainly a pretty widespread recognition of the problem and affirmative steps taken to fix it.

I think the core issue is going to be that Sessions has a big ol' chubby for forfeiture, and he's going to continue to try and find ways to do it no matter what's passed.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wayfarer

"Net positive", for whom?
Seems it's a net positive to the agencies that are seizing property.


Seizure of private property without due process beforehand is a direct violation of the 4th ammendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I couldn't agree more. I don't think it's a matter of kicking people out of the country for this apparent constitutional violation but rather challenge it in the Supreme Court.

I wondered if any lawsuits have been filed and found this;
Federal Court Allows ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Civil Asset Forfeiture to Proceed—A Win in the Fight Against Policing for Profit
From the linked source;

“The court’s ruling pointed to numerous specific pieces of evidence offered in Ms. Cox’s lawsuit that show the unconstitutional profit motive inherent in Arizona’s forfeiture laws – a motive that has long corrupted the work of law enforcement in our state," said Jean-Jacques Cabou, a partner at Perkins Coie in Phoenix. "We’re confident that our upcoming discovery will reveal even more about these unconstitutional laws and the practice of policing for profit in Arizona.”
I find it odd that it needs to be shown it's profit motivated. This reeks of illegal search and seizure which, I would think, is admissible grounds itself.
edit on 10/19/2017 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
"to seize property and money on suspicion of its connection with criminal wrongdoing."

on that basis, seize the whitehouse, capitol hill, wall street, etc etc



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
"to seize property and money on suspicion of its connection with criminal wrongdoing."

on that basis, seize the whitehouse, capitol hill, wall street, etc etc
Nice idea but slippery slopes usually don't allow sliding up hill. The little guy gets the shaft because it's easier.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
civil asset forfeiture is a huge erosion of our rights. there's no positive benefit to it.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Seeing as there doesn't seem to be a supporting opinion for it, are there those among us who believe its worth it for the benefit of other actions Sessions brings to the table (a-la its fair payment for going after MS-13, or something of that nature)?



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Nothing at all positive about Civil Asset forfeiture, or as it was known back in the day highway robbery.

Horrible law that needs to die a quick painful death, as with all to many laws left open for wide wide interpretation it has been abused wildly beyond its intended purpose.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Interesting example from an older news item...


DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking, according to Justice Department records. Most of the money was passed on to local police departments that lend officers to assist the drug agency.

“They count on this as part of the budget,” said Louis Weiss, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. “Basically, you’ve got to feed the monster.”

In most cases, records show the agents gave the suspected couriers a receipt for the cash — sometimes totaling $50,000 or more, stuffed into suitcases or socks — and sent them on their way without ever charging them with a crime.



www.google.com...

Don't travel with cash!




posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

That is a stupid loop hole. Civil Asset forfeiture ruins innocent people's lives. It isn't fair and is totally authoritarian. Like I said, I don't support it one iota.


I don't support it either, I'm saying that it's well established in our system of laws. It would be easier to remove due process than to remove asset forfeiture. The best we can hope for is policies to not use it, and perhaps a Supreme Court ruling to limit it's scope.

But, between the fact that it has been useful to law enforcement at times, that it has served some public good, and original intent, I would be very surprised if you could eliminate it entirely.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Bottom line to me is there is no due process to seizing the assets. They should be put into escrow until the case is resolved. And that is why there must be a criminal charge along with the initial seizure. Otherwise the government is acting like a highway robber stopping innocent people and seizing their assets. I have read about many cases which were egregiously wrong. In my opinion this needs to stop. The government is out of control. Tyranny is walking in behind policies like this.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


Asset forfeiture is legalized highway robbery by the government.

The only way it can be "rationalized" is by delusional thinking and tortured logic.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join