Asset Forfeiture: Taking Bad Guys' Things

[Palmguy]

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?

The difference (or rather one significant difference) is permanence. If a conviction is not obtained, then the default action is the release of the person.

The due process standard to deprive someone of property should be substantially more similar to the standard to deprive someone of life or liberty (proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial) than it apparently currently is.

[LittleLebowski]

The difference (or rather one significant difference) is permanence. If a conviction is not obtained, then the default action is the release of the person.

The due process standard to deprive someone of property should be substantially more similar to the standard to deprive someone of life or liberty (proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial) than it apparently currently is.

Yup. Not "common people don't carry this much US currency."

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ssee-case.html

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18...or-profit-case

[TGS]

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.

I think his post wasn't worded very well......but, I think what he's trying to convey is that there should be a court process where the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ill gotten gains or else they be returned....

...not that there should be a conviction prior to seizing the gains.

That, obviously, would be fairly retarded.....and if that's what he meant, then kindly allow me to step aside.

[LittleLebowski]

Yup. Not "common people don't carry this much US currency."

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ssee-case.html

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18...or-profit-case

The interview with the neck-tattooed officer starting at about 3:10 is painful.

[voodoo_man]

I think his post wasn't worded very well......but, I think what he's trying to convey is that there should be a court process where the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ill gotten gains or else they be returned....

...not that there should be a conviction prior to seizing the gains.

That, obviously, would be fairly retarded.....and if that's what he meant, then kindly allow me to step aside.

Thats true, but A.F. can only work one way, the right way and that is the only at it stands up to court scrutiny and case law.

One of the narcotics supervisors I used to work for had a funny line which wasn't that funny when you started really thinking about it.

"Their property is safest in police custody, where else can a person store things without a storage fee."

As I stated in the previous thread, I have only ever seized property in conjunction with an arrest (which I would have PC for)

[Zincwarrior]

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.

What part is wrong?

[Zincwarrior]

I think his post wasn't worded very well......but, I think what he's trying to convey is that there should be a court process where the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ill gotten gains or else they be returned....

...not that there should be a conviction prior to seizing the gains.

That, obviously, would be fairly retarded.....and if that's what he meant, then kindly allow me to step aside.

Exactly. Asset siezure is part of a criminal prosecution then all the standards should apply.

[voodoo_man]

Exactly. Asset siezure is part of a criminal prosecution then all the standards should apply.

...they do.

[Zincwarrior]

Thats true, but A.F. can only work one way, the right way and that is the only at it stands up to court scrutiny and case law.

One of the narcotics supervisors I used to work for had a funny line which wasn't that funny when you started really thinking about it.

"Their property is safest in police custody, where else can a person store things without a storage fee."

As I stated in the previous thread, I have only ever seized property in conjunction with an arrest (which I would have PC for)

but you're not giving it back if there is no conviction.

[voodoo_man]

but you're not giving it back if there is no conviction.

Yes. We are.

Edit - unless it's drugs or something illegal of that nature.