WOW ! I have an old dear friend who believes the police are trying to arrest her for prostitution so they can take her money and property.. she's extremely intelligent and I thought she just tipped a little to the crazy side....but after reading your petition I'm starting to think maybe she's on to something, that's just crazy.
Sorry, don't agree. It's also one of the only ways to cripple individual drug dealers, criminals and public safety risk drunk drivers who repeatedly are arrested and put others lives in danger. The civil process still requires a court proceeding and is not a guarantee the LE agency will win. If they can prove the money or property wasn't used in the commission of the crime or obtained via criminal means, then they get it back. A normal law abiding citizen shouldn't have any difficulty disproving criminal usage. It's still up to a court of law.
Sorry, don't agree. It's also one of the only ways to cripple individual drug dealers, criminals and public safety risk drunk drivers who repeatedly are arrested and put others lives in danger. The civil process still requires a court proceeding and is not a guarantee the LE agency will win. If they can prove the money or property wasn't used in the commission of the crime or obtained via criminal means, then they get it back. A normal law abiding citizen shouldn't have any difficulty disproving criminal usage. It's still up to a court of law.
I agree. I think the headings are a little misleading, suggesting cops can come just take whatever they want if they think it could have been used in a crime. The reason they say this can happen without being found guilty is that the level of proof required is less than in a criminal trial. It's referred to as a "perponderancr of evidence" which is the same level required in civil courts. So it is possible for a judge to say there is enough evidence to seize your assets, but not enough to lock you up.
Agree with the OP. Civil asset forfeiture, especially without due process, occurs regularly throughout this country. If one isn't guilty of a criminal offense, then one shouldn't have their assets seized. Unfortunately law enforcement uses civil asset forfeiture as a way to increase revenue and make up for budget shortfalls, so they're very interested in maximizing the return, and are not afraid to push boundaries. i think it is an absolute sham. Unfortunately, Sessions as AG will bump up civil forfeiture and even more unfortunate is that Trump has no idea what it even is, as evidenced by Q&A in his meeting with law enforcement officials earlier in the week. If you aren't sure about this issue, or are comfortable with what the gov't has done in the past with civil forfeiture, just wait. You'll be opposed at some point in the next few years when it gets totally out of hand.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
she's extremely intelligent and I thought she just tipped a little to the crazy side....but after reading your petition I'm starting to think maybe she's on to something, that's just crazy.
PA State Senator Calls Trump a "Fascist, Loofa-Faced, Sh*t-Gibbon"
The reason they say this can happen without being found guilty is that the level of proof required is less than in a criminal trial. It's referred to as a "perponderancr of evidence" which is the same level required in civil courts. So it is possible for a judge to say there is enough evidence to seize your assets, but not enough to lock you up.