20 ms·

> I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of

> I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of guns, illegal substances, explosives, etc. I see no problem with guns, illegal substances, and explosives being a separately-delineated legal category, allowing them to be seized while not allowing cars, computers and other private property to be seized. > I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be. I don't think that would be handled through civil forfeiture law, either. They'd just pour it out.

kbenson 11y ago
> I see no problem with guns, illegal substances, and explosives being a separately-delineated legal category, allowing them to be seized while not allowing cars, computers and other private property to be seized. That would be a refinement to CF, where it only applies to specific items, not the complete abolishment of it. There is the problematic case of money, and being able to return it to the rightful owner. > I don't think that would be handled through civil forfeiture law, either. They'd just pour it out. It's a poor example. I'll freely admit that. The point was to show that any time the police take something from you without a conviction and without CF, it would be real theft, under the law, not theft in all but name, which we have now. In some cases that's good, and in some I think it's not.