Disgusting.

I have no problems with the federal government holding the assets when there IS probable cause, if they return it promptly (without being sued) if it turns out that there is no criminal reason for the cash stash. This is the idea in the first place. Don't let the drug lord re-hide the cash. But the program has seemingly metastasized into a perverse shakedown process that fleeces the innocent, and especially the lower-income and not-well-lawyered-up innocent.

“You can’t just take people’s stuff because you happen to find them with cash,” Vance said. “We still live in a country where people are innocent until they’re proven guilty.”

Would that that were true. Civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. I'm not lawyer but I think that the abuse of this principle does not even meet the usual standards for civil liability. It's a clear abuse of power by those in authority.

Big Al

quote:

It's a clear abuse of power by those in authority.

Yep

Gets my blood boiling every time I read one of these stories as it undermines my and others faith in what this country is supposed to stand for - and would appear to directly violate the constitution.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he 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,

"Probable cause" is apparently defined as "if you have a bunch of money, we'll assume you stole it." Using that flimsy suggestion, one might recommend confiscating the assets of several members of Congress who seem to have a lot of wealth - and only a modest salary. Let them prove they obtained that wealth legally.

It’s a lot like police are with SWAT teams and military gear … if they have it, they want to use it, and so concoct reasons to justify the use.

I have read of cases where cops have taken as little as 83 cents. And cases where the notice of the opportunity to get your money back was printed along with hundreds of other names in grey mouseprint in the back pages of a newspaper the victim was unlikely to see. Then you need money to hire a lawyer to get your money back.

I understand the concept of civil forfeiture goes back a few centuries to England trying to fight piracy. The asset was found guilty, not the person (a bizarre concept) and the crown could seize a boat and put a pirate out of business.

Police departments (in fact all government) run on money. If they can find a way to get more, they will.

There are firms that go around the country teaching police departments how to do this. The sales pitch is simple: there’s a lot of money to be gotten out there… here’s how to take it with impunity. After all, you’re just taking money from drug dealers and fraudsters, so it’s a noble thing. Plus you keep the money. Pretty cool, huh? Disgusting.

Down with civil forfeiture!
There are so many chances for Congress to change the law to stop this sort of thing, so many chances for the Judicial branch to rule this sort of thing unconstitutional (and justifiably so), yet it remains.