5 ms·

Can someone please explain to me how this is still legal? Has this not been challenged through to the Supreme Court? The idea that the police can just steal m

Can someone please explain to me how this is still legal? Has this not been challenged through to the Supreme Court? The idea that the police can just steal money like this without a trial seems like textbook unconstitutional behavior. How has this been allowed to continue for so long?

naasking 9y ago
Probably because they seize assets only from people who can't afford to mount a defense.
- njarboe 9y ago
  Especially after their assets are seized.
rgbrenner 9y ago
There was a civil forfeiture case in 1827[0] where a ship was seized for piracy without convicting the owner of the crime... the supreme court upheld that action. It also lays out a couple of things: that the property is considered the offender; and that the property's offense and the owners criminal offense are two separate issues. That's the basis for civil forfeiture laws. There was a recent case that came up: Leonard v Texas[1].. where 200k in cash was seized that police said was from narcotics sales. She had a bill of sale for a home for the same amount. The problem is, she didn't raise the due process issue until it reached the supreme court.. which is a procedural error.. so the court denied it. So I think we're still waiting for a more modern ruling from the supreme court on it. 0. https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.ht... 1. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/leonard-v-texas/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/leonard-v-texas/ 1a (ruling): http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-122-respecting-cert-denial.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-122-...
- BrianSkog 9y ago
  that the property is considered the offender Did the court just have its head way up its ass?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The idea that the police can just steal money like this without a trial Forfeiture cases are not without trial, where there is a party with interest in the property contesting the forfeiture.

naasking 9y ago

Probably because they seize assets only from people who can't afford to mount a defense.

njarboe 9y ago
Especially after their assets are seized.

rgbrenner 9y ago

There was a civil forfeiture case in 1827[0] where a ship was seized for piracy without convicting the owner of the crime... the supreme court upheld that action. It also lays out a couple of things: that the property is considered the offender; and that the property's offense and the owners criminal offense are two separate issues. That's the basis for civil forfeiture laws. There was a recent case that came up: Leonard v Texas[1].. where 200k in cash was seized that police said was from narcotics sales. She had a bill of sale for a home for the same amount. The problem is, she didn't raise the due process issue until it reached the supreme court.. which is a procedural error.. so the court denied it. So I think we're still waiting for a more modern ruling from the supreme court on it. 0. https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.htm https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.ht... 1. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/leonard-v-texas/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/leonard-v-texas/ 1a (ruling): http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-122-respecting-cert-denial.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-122-...

BrianSkog 9y ago
that the property is considered the offender Did the court just have its head way up its ass?

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The idea that the police can just steal money like this without a trial Forfeiture cases are not without trial, where there is a party with interest in the property contesting the forfeiture.