4 ms·
> Still, the attorney general's office says the bill "contains more than minor errors." > For example, if a person suspected of drug trafficking is stopped by
by zyxley 10y ago
> Still, the attorney general's office says the bill "contains more than minor errors."
> For example, if a person suspected of drug trafficking is stopped by local law enforcement on Interstate 80 en route to another state, it's possible Nebraska laws would provide no avenue to prosecute that person and therefore no way to permanently seize the cash, Shasserre said.
"You can't take their money if you don't have enough evidence to prosecute" is a feature, not a bug.
- avs733 10y agodepends on your perspective... At the risk of defending a complete moron (the AG), he is likely an elected official who the people of the state want to do these things and the law is preventing him from doing the will of the people. (analysis of a point of view, not a validation of it)
- mulmen 10y agoFor yet another perspective, the measure in question was put in place by lawmakers who are elected to do the will of the people. If this law is being passed then we can infer that the will of the people is not, in fact, to have their property stolen by the state without due process.
- sbuttgereit 10y agoThe analysis is likely correct. But the will of the people is not always right and sometimes law is at its best when it protects you from the will of the people. This may be just so, in which case I applaud the insight and, perhaps, bravery of the legislature for doing the right thing.
- azernik 10y agoThe response of the bill's sponsors is even more pithy: > Garrett said the goal is first and foremost to protect people's due process rights. > "You can what-if things to death," he said. "If they don't have a case — too bad, so sad."