3 ms·

The TLDR is that they are essentially "arresting" the property because it was used in a crime, regardless of who did the crime. The fact that it belonged to som

by beeboop 10y ago

The TLDR is that they are essentially "arresting" the property because it was used in a crime, regardless of who did the crime. The fact that it belonged to someone, often times the person who committed the crime, is sort of irrelevant in the government's opinion.

bobwaycott 10y ago
That's a bit generous of a TL;DR, don't you think? The reason civil asset forfeiture is controversial is that property can be seized even when a crime has not actually occurred but is merely alleged, and the owner of the property has not been proven guilty of a crime. There are dirty cops who have taken people's cash on the basis of trumped up charges. This isn't the first time this has been reported on in the US.
- tamana 10y ago
  "Charges" is rather generous, isn't it? They don't even charge the property before seizing it.
- beeboop 10y ago
  Not saying I agree with it, just explaining why it is legally allowed. And yes I should have used "allegedly" as a qualifier.
x5n1 10y ago
A lot of the confiscation does not make that claim even. It's mere suspicion.