31–40 of 79 posts
So, anybody discussing decriminalizing drugs and proposing they are a medical issue instead can count on the fact that he/she is threatening the livelihood of both the dealers and the "enforcement" agency??? (and be appropriately wary)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime is. I'm not sure why it's a travesty that it's illegal to conceal the source of illegally-earned money.
Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you think "due process" == "Because I said so", it is both legally and morally a travesty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy for them to conclude, with no due process. They just say so, take the money, and leave you having to file suit and fight the government to get your own money back. Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime is. The sicker part is that it's just admitting that their justice system is so broken that they wouldn't be able to get convictions against these "criminals" otherwise.
> Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime is. I'm not sure why it's a travesty that it's illegal to conceal the source of illegally-earned money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 So was it drug money or not?
Some of the money certainly was, perhaps even most. It is, however a grave injustice when money that is totally legitimate gets seized from innocent people, and some of the people mentioned in the article had strong evidence for their money being from legitimate sources. The fundamental problem is that the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal law. The legislative remedy some states have started t…
Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law.
A real improvement is to seize, hold, require conviction, and then enforce forfeiture. If a conviction cannot be made, the forfeiture should be invalidated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 So was it drug money or not?
Of course it was drug money, It was seized.
"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" - Fourth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- Fifth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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" - Fourteenth Ammendment
There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. What they are doing is called out as unconstitutional in no less than three (!!!) different amendments. At this point in time, the supreme court should be buckling under the weight of requests to review this practice, and have it struck down as un-American. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects again…
And yet, civil asset forfeiture has been sanctioned by SCotUS.
If we're ever going to change this kind of crap, indignation and, "But, but, but ... nuh-uh!" are not the places to start.
So, anybody discussing decriminalizing drugs and proposing they are a medical issue instead can count on the fact that he/she is threatening the livelihood of both the dealers and the "enforcement" agency??? (and be appropriately wary)
Throw in police unions, the private prison industry, the surveillance industry, criminal lawyers, ...
In other words, the circle is complete. I wouldn't be surprised if it ever wasn't broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an acquaintance that had the police seize $10k in cash from him after he had gotten in a car accident, along with bags of clothing he had bought at the mall. After court and everything the clothing was never reported and the $10k became $4k. It's not just money they'll take, it's anything of value they feel like.
Used to be people would wait a while, and then go and shoot people who did this. I can't decide if it's progress that people no longer consider this reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the money certainly was, perhaps even most. It is, however a grave injustice when money that is totally legitimate gets seized from innocent people, and some of the people mentioned in the article had strong evidence for their money being from legitimate sources. The fundamental problem is that the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal law. The legislative remedy some states have started t…
I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work. Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law. A real improvement is to seize, hold…
That's not an inversion of the way "the rule of law" is supposed to work, its an inversion of the way criminal punishment is supposed to work, because of the particular character of criminal sanction. But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists.
Further, civil forfeiture mostly isn't "guilty until proven innocent"; while the burden of proof is the typical civil burden of proof ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt"), the government bears the burden of proving that assets are subject to forfeiture in a contested forfeiture.
(The one aspect of civil forfeiture that has a bit of "guilty until proven innocent" is the "innocent owner" defense, on which the owner bears the burden of proof, where property that is subject to forfeiture -- e.g., because it has been proven to be proceeds of a crime -- is nevertheless immune to forfeiture because the owner either did not know of the conduct justifying the forfeiture or took steps to stop the use of the property giving rise to the forfeiture once they did know.)