The guys who wrote the Constitution disagreed with you, since asset forfeiture is as old as the United States itself.Originally Posted by 4gallonbucket
There is, but since it's a civil proceeding, not criminal, the burden of proof is different.There should at least be due process before anything is taken.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
Assets are seized based on probable cause, and forfeited due based on a preponderance of the evidence in the civil case.
Do you also have a problem with LE arresting a person, based on probable cause, even though there has been no conviction yet? If not, why do think it's OK to seize a person based on probable cause, but not the instruments and proceeds of their criminal activity?
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
You know why it's called civil forfeiture, not criminal, right? It's a civil tort over the assets, not a criminal prosecution.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
I do it for a living. Therefore it is safe to say I believe Civil Asset Forfeture is a good thing.
No, the person just has to make a claim for their property. The government must then either return it, or attempt to prove the property is the instruments and/or proceeds of criminal activity at a civil trial. If the government cannot prove that with a preponderance of the evidence the property must be returned.
Property does get returned in many cases. Sometimes because the government chooses not pursue the civil suit, sometimes because the government can't meet it's burden in court.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
And to a whole lot of people it's a criminal issue, regardless of its actual legal status and/or venue. Therein lies a big part of the issue: stuff people reasonably perceive to be criminal law (because we're alleging it's the proceeds/tools/etc. of crime) taking place in civil court with a remarkably lower burden of proof, sometimes before the criminal case is resolved. And yes, I'm aware that other "criminal" practices -- such as restraining orders -- are also brought in civil courts. What I'm saying is that, ignorance of the masses aside, it's inextricably linked to criminal behavior which feeds the perception issue (and thus feeds some of the outrage). Some people who do the job I do and, I'd assume by your user tag, some people who do the job you do unfortunately haven't helped matters (and, to be clear, I'm not saying you've done bad forfeitures).
We stopped doing CAF years ago. Too much of a PITA. Much easier to add the property we seized to an indictment and get it via the criminal case. I've given money and property back for a variety of reasons.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
Yep, I'd much rather seize something under a search warrant and have a judge award it later on than going through the whole process for civil forfeiture.
Inappropriate comparison.The suspect's assets are being taken with no conviction. To be equivalent if a person is arrested then they automatically go to prison.
That's not how that works...
If LE had to do it the way you are saying catching the criminal with 1mil in cash, 50k in product would mean LE doen't take the money.
Last edited by voodoo_man; 08-02-2017 at 08:06 AM.
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
Reply With Quote