Asset Forfeiture: Taking Bad Guys' Things

[TGS]

The same legal standard used to arrest someone and take away their freedom is the same legal standard used to seize assets (probable cause).

The difference being that person then has to go through trial, and innocence is presumed.

The current legal standard at the federal level is that there is no requirement for a trial, and the person must prove their innocence.

The entire concept and the justification from that random 1826(?) SCOTUS case is absurd and smack in the face of the 4th Amendment. The idea that the property has no rights because it's a civil suit against the property, not a person, yet property belongs to and was seized from a person, property which is protected under the 4th Amendment...

[voodoo_man]

It's very unnerving to see what happened on I-40 in Tennessee.

Stupid people doing stupid things while using something that is clearly outside their ability to use properly.

[LittleLebowski]

Stupid people doing stupid things while using something that is clearly outside their ability to use properly.

Yup. They had that one case where officers from two different agencies got into an argument on camera over who got to pull over a truck.

[voodoo_man]

Yup. They had that one case where officers from two different agencies got into an argument on camera over who got to pull over a truck.

That is unacceptable and that is not how A.F. is supposed to be done.

[TC215]

The difference being that person then has to go through trial, and innocence is presumed.

The current legal standard at the federal level is that there is no requirement for a trial, and the person must prove their innocence.

The entire concept and the justification from that random 1826(?) SCOTUS case is absurd and smack in the face of the 4th Amendment. The idea that the property has no rights because it's a civil suit against the property, not a person, yet property belongs to and was seized from a person, property which is protected under the 4th Amendment...

I work both state and federal cases, and the majority of my seizures are at the state level. All the federal seizures I've done have been through the indictment or superseding indictment, and then negotiated as part of the plea agreement.

In my state, the property owner has a right to appear and speak at the probable cause hearing in front of a judge. Then, they contest the seizure in court. It is a civil process instead of criminal.

Yup. They had that one case where officers from two different agencies got into an argument on camera over who got to pull over a truck.

News Channel 5 in Nashville went after interdiction units pretty hard a few years ago, and did an hour long special where that incident was featured. I've taught interdiction, including asset forfeiture, to officers all over my half of the state, and play that entire program in class. It usually generates some pretty lively discussion.

A lot of what was shown in that special, including that argument, was/is an embarrassment to the profession. Some of what they used was pretty badly misrepresented, though.

[TGS]

I work both state and federal cases, and the majority of my seizures are at the state level. All the federal seizures I've done have been through the indictment or superseding indictment, and then negotiated as part of the plea agreement.

In my state, the property owner has a right to appear and speak at the probable cause hearing in front of a judge. Then, they contest the seizure in court. It is a civil process instead of criminal.

So, your seizures in the federal side are criminal, not civil then, right?

As for your state level seizures, that sounds like what it should be.

The problem people have isn't that.....it's the current constitutional standard that doesn't actually require that amount of due process. (If I'm reading correctly, your state requires a trial/court process of some type).

[TC215]

So, your seizures in the federal side are criminal, not civil then, right?

As for your state level seizures, that sounds like what it should be.

The problem people have isn't that.....it's the current constitutional standard that doesn't actually require that amount of due process. (If I'm reading correctly, your state requires a trial/court process of some type).

Yes, criminal. I've never seized property in federal court without criminal charges also being placed.

And yes, at the state level, the probable cause hearing is before a criminal judge. After that, if it is contested, it goes before an administrative law judge. After, that it can be contested all the way up to the court of criminal appeals or state supreme court.

And believe me, there are plenty of people that have a problem with the way it's done in my state (TN), as the aforementioned News5 special shows. We have legislature introduced every year to change our laws on asset forfeiture, including a proposed law that will not let us take any property until after a criminal conviction (as in, we wouldn't even be able to hold property in evidence while waiting to go to court). Which obviously wouldn't work.

[TAZ]

I10 had a rash of asset issues from what I remember way back when.

I have zero issues with seizing assets if there is PC showing that said asset is linked to criminal activity. However, if no conviction is made in the case then the owner of the property should NOT need to sue to get their stuff back. The default should be to the benefit of the people and not the state.

[beenalongtime]

Before the thread gets locked I'd love to hear if there has ever been any cash returned.

One that stuck in my memory:
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2..._to_drugs.html

[blues]

"What nexus to terrorism? It's a clock my son built to demonstrate for the president."