10 ms·

Every time I hear about asset forfeiture I can't believe this is legal. It just blows my mind.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Just another reminder that there is no rule of law in the USA; its judicial system is an arm of oppression, not service. There's nothing we as individuals can do about it besides acknowledging the illegitimacy of laws and abiding by a basic empathetic moral code, but don't kid yourself about how that will be treated. If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! Part of civil disobedience is acknowledging that you may get caught and punished. But in doing so, you are riding on the fact that the punishment is arbitrary and offensive, which would rally people in support of you if it is carried out. At least, that's the idea. The real problem comes when your government is more than happy to simply arrest/beat/shoot people until they quiet down.
- adventured 9y ago
  Fortunately you're wrong. In reality, the US is one of the 20 least corrupt nations on the planet, on par with Ireland and Japan and less corrupt than France. It has very strong property protection laws, which is both why the judge returned the money (naturally that would happen in a nation with no rule of law huh), and why the Obama Administration took important steps to neuter civil asset forfeiture abuse. Can more be done to fully end the abuse? Of course. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept... The US also has rare universal Congressional support for ending civil asset forfeiture abuses. Jeff Sessions undid some of the fixes the Obama Administration made; it turns out that might have been ideal, as Congress is now going to put it down for good by law. Sept 2017: "In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture" "The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support." https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-passes-amendment-to-restrict-asset-forfeiture/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-p... Nov 2017: "A bipartisan group of senators wants to defund Attorney General Jeff Sessions' expansion of the Justice Department's civil asset forfeiture program, following similar efforts by libertarian-leaning and progressive members of the House earlier this year." http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defunding-of-jeff-ses http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defundi...
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    That's fair, but I'm not saying it isn't better than many other places, I'm just saying that it is very bad. Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it stop happening.
  - avs733 9y ago
    Your source doesn't quite say what you are implying. They define corruption thusly: >Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs. >Grand corruption consists of acts committed at a high level of government that distort policies or the central functioning of the state, enabling leaders to benefit at the expense of the public good. Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials in their interactions with ordinary citizens, who often are trying to access basic goods or services in places like hospitals, schools, police departments and other agencies. >Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth. See animated definitions of many corruption terms in our Anti-corruption Glossary. The link you provided measures the PERCEPTION of corruption. It is perfectly plausible for there to be a huge amount of corruption and very little perception of corruption depending on many factors. The source describes it thusly: >No. The CPI is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption, i.e. administrative and political corruption. It is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of entire nations or societies, or of their policies, or the activities of their private sector. Citizens of those countries/territories that score at the lower end of the CPI often show the same concern about and condemnation of corruption as the public in countries that perform strongly. Their data sources primarily asks 'experts' which they define differently (additionally, one specifically asks business executives, one includes the general public, and one doesn't clearly specify) whether they perceive corruption to be an issue. While the exact questions vary, these two seem like representative examples: >In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with the following and >First, how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which you are working? Second, has corruption decreased, stayed the same or increased compared with one year ago? Third, what aspects or implications of corruption in your country stand out to you as being particularly important? If the majority of the populace feels that seizure of drug profits is warranted, and the police generally label everything seized 'drug profits' than it is perfectly feasible that is an accepted narrative without any meaningful evidence being provided. They are the type of people who exist and are privileged by the normative power hierarchies in that society (hence the term 'expert' being applied to them by peers). These are the people least likely to experience that type of corruption/oppression...by design All of this comes down to the data they select. Your source uses the exact type of data which would hide corruption by this definition. That effect comes both through the selection of questions and the selection of people who will answer those questions. Their implementation of their definition of corruption largely results in a study of whether those with social capital feel like society treats them and their businesses fairly. It seems a poor metric of the types of systematic (designed) corruption experienced by others on a regular basis.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Surely this would require everyone to have perfect information at all times, otherwise how do we know if the law we conclude is wrong is based on something we didn't consider? We vote in elections, not with our actions. You're advocating anarchy.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Well that's why I think you should research the history behind the laws you're thinking of breaking, but I'd argue that it is more dangerous to blindly follow laws than to blindly ignore them, if you follow a simple "no theft" rule. Agency, life, property; if you take a broad definition, I'd argue that the only true crime is unilaterally taking from others. It's good to have due diligence on how your decisions affect others, and that's one possible function of a legal system, but it definitely is not the function of ours. It's like how the concept of "The Market" relies upon everyone having perfect information on every economic issue and decision. They don't, but we still use it. And sure, we suffer for that pretty regularly when we relax regulations too much, but what was that quote? "It's the worst system in the world except for all the other ones?"
  - jstanley 9y ago
    And you're advocating blind subservience to authority. How can any authority be legitimate if the subordinates can't understand it?
    - mulmen 9y ago
      I'm arguing for democratic rule of law.
      - 8ytecoder 9y ago
        There's no democracy without civil disobedience - which includes going to jail for breaking the law. Almost every change in society has been brought about by someone "breaking" a law - escaping slavery, sitting in the front section of a bus, loving someone of the same sex,...etc. I can go on. Law plays catch-up with attitude changes and what we consider acceptable as a society. We may sometimes have to break the law first to fix it.
- coliveira 9y ago
  Not only this, but police forces are one of the few categories of workers where their union is praised and respected. This seems strange until you realize that the police is mostly structured to maintain the current status quo and oppress lower income people.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Correct. Police, firefighters and prison guard unions are good unions protecting us. Teachers unions are bad unions indoctrinating our youth with leftist ideology. That may explain why in the city I live in, the minimum educational requirements for the police 'academy' is a GED.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      It's not like education beyond that makes you a better officer.
      - freeone3000 9y ago
        Knowledge of the law would certainly help. Maybe a Bachelor's of Criminal Justice. Perhaps we can loosen that to related fields, and also allow Social Work or Civics or Pre-law. Maybe even just a general aptitude qualification, like flight attendants, and require an Associate's degree in literally anything. Education does make you a better person. Better people make better police officers.
        SamReidHughes 9y ago
        Generally speaking education does not make you a better person. It can even make you a worse person than alternatives such as manual labor, working in a kitchen, or a job at a summer camp. Cops apparently don't need a two year course of study to understand the law well enough to do their jobs. Instead of spending years up front, an alternative is to spread that time throughout their career on basic stuff like fitness or gun training.
- jancsika 9y ago
  > If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! I feel like vaccine schedules are wrong, so I asked my pediatrician about them. I feel like global warming is a hoax, so I asked a scientist about it. I feel like a law is wrong, so I asked a legal expert about it. The next step to take is up to me, but in each case I'm confident I'd be starting with stronger footing that you would be with your process. Furthermore, I can pass that process on to others in a way that is less fragile and more efficient than your process. Ask your pediatrician. Ask your scientist colleague. Ask your law professor. In a world of good faith actors you'd still be reading primary research papers on epidemiology for years before moving to the second topic. In the real world you'd likely skip the necessary steps, risk making misguided decisions, and spreading that misguided decision-making process to others.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Yeah, good point.
cmurf 9y ago
This is classic old school Republicanism. The default state is to not care what the public thinks and to have no laws making such things illegal, and to have instead aggressive prosecutors and police who act like highwaymen. If you're rich you can afford a lawyer and buy your rights. If you're not, you get the default state which is fewer rights. This is how you build a two class society rather than a John Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" based society. In Conservativism, the very idea that a person's family name, bloodline, wealth, title, are irrelevant before the law is itself unfair: people aren't equal, certain family's are better, even some of them divinely superior, and the law should not force police, prosecutors, or judges to treat people equally. No one really says this outloud but it is the base ideology of conservatism and aristocracy. Not equality. And this predates the United State's version of it.
- xupybd 9y ago
  As a conservative I disagree with you entirely. In the eyes of the state all should be equal, any situation that exposes they're not treated as equal should be addressed. It is true that most on the right don't desire equal outcomes for all but equal opportunities. That doesn't mean some have a divine right to a better life. It simply means we want to reward the most talented, hard working and advantaged because doing so results in a more productive society. But there is a balance to make sure all the wealth doesn't end up in their hands.
  - coliveira 9y ago
    Your definition of conservatism is at odds with reality. Rich people are actively trying to live their lives with minimum effort, so it is hard to argue that they are the most talented. Poor people have a hard time making their freedoms worth anything, and they're not been helped by any conservative. The main problem here is that conservative reasoning is circular: if you're rich you must in some way deserve it (explanations will be made for sure), and if you deserve you need to keep the wealth.
    - RightMillennial 9y ago
      You're describing society at large. This has nothing to due with "conservatism".
cjensen 9y ago
It might be legal. It might not. The problem is this needs to be challenged in court. Until the Supremes rule on this, it's all speculation. That said, I've never even heard a theory stated in support of why it might be lawful.
- turc1656 9y ago
  The theory behind it's lawfulness is that property doesn't have rights. That's why when the property is taken, the cases are named things like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" or "State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix". Those are real case names, BTW. They basically separate property from the person owning it with the argument that the property itself is guilty because it was used in commission of a crime, with or without the owner's knowledge. I didn't say it was a good theory. But that's basically what is boils down to. Personally, I find it repugnant and I do believe it is an egregious violation of our constitutional rights related to search and seizure. Also, the USSC has already ruled in part on this issue and the opinion was not great: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf Not only did they generally uphold the practice, but they weaseled out of ruling on other parts of it (not unusual for the USSC), this time because part of the argument presented was only first presented to the USSC and no lower court. So they basically said that since that other stuff hadn't seen a lower court, they weren't commenting on it.
awalton 9y ago
Yeah, really hard to believe we simply modernized the idea of the Highwayman. Even harder to believe that the police force is so corrupt in so many parts of this country that they were able to rebrand the tactic and get it written into laws as legal. Wait, this is 2017 right? None of that's hard to believe.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  The tale of former Governor Lester Maddox's campaign of harassment against a corrupt south Georgia police force is an amusing one. http://www.oxfordamerican.org/magazine/item/1023-the-ludowici-trap http://www.oxfordamerican.org/magazine/item/1023-the-ludowic... http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/ludowici.htm http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/ludowici.htm You know it's bad when a rural town attains national infamy in the pre-internet days. Besides gaming the stoplights, the police would hide behind billboards and trees with their radar guns and target out-of-state motorists with tickets for +1 mph over the limit. Since most were just passing through the town, nobody had the inclination to wait around for a court date to fight the tickets, and all were essentially forced to pay without a chance to contest it. He eventually succeeded in passing some legislation to curb the abuse. To this day local police have to sit in plain sight on flat ground (within a certain tolerance of grade) when running radar/lidar, can't write speeding tickets for less than 10 mph over the posted limit (does not apply to state troopers or school zones) and a slew of other technical nitpicks that make it easier to get "sane" speeding tickets dismissed.
SN76477 9y ago
I think that asset forfeiture is fair when found guilty. say you have commited fraud, asset forfeiture could be appropriate. What is important is that you must remain innocent until proven guilty.
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  That's the important distinction between criminal and civil forfeiture as I understand it. Criminal forfeiture is when property is seized as proceeds from an unlawful act following a guilty verdict.

Just another reminder that there is no rule of law in the USA; its judicial system is an arm of oppression, not service. There's nothing we as individuals can do about it besides acknowledging the illegitimacy of laws and abiding by a basic empathetic moral code, but don't kid yourself about how that will be treated. If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! Part of civil disobedience is acknowledging that you may get caught and punished. But in doing so, you are riding on the fact that the punishment is arbitrary and offensive, which would rally people in support of you if it is carried out. At least, that's the idea. The real problem comes when your government is more than happy to simply arrest/beat/shoot people until they quiet down.

adventured 9y ago
Fortunately you're wrong. In reality, the US is one of the 20 least corrupt nations on the planet, on par with Ireland and Japan and less corrupt than France. It has very strong property protection laws, which is both why the judge returned the money (naturally that would happen in a nation with no rule of law huh), and why the Obama Administration took important steps to neuter civil asset forfeiture abuse. Can more be done to fully end the abuse? Of course. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept... The US also has rare universal Congressional support for ending civil asset forfeiture abuses. Jeff Sessions undid some of the fixes the Obama Administration made; it turns out that might have been ideal, as Congress is now going to put it down for good by law. Sept 2017: "In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture" "The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support." https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-passes-amendment-to-restrict-asset-forfeiture/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-p... Nov 2017: "A bipartisan group of senators wants to defund Attorney General Jeff Sessions' expansion of the Justice Department's civil asset forfeiture program, following similar efforts by libertarian-leaning and progressive members of the House earlier this year." http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defunding-of-jeff-ses http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defundi...
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  That's fair, but I'm not saying it isn't better than many other places, I'm just saying that it is very bad. Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it stop happening.
- avs733 9y ago
  Your source doesn't quite say what you are implying. They define corruption thusly: >Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs. >Grand corruption consists of acts committed at a high level of government that distort policies or the central functioning of the state, enabling leaders to benefit at the expense of the public good. Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials in their interactions with ordinary citizens, who often are trying to access basic goods or services in places like hospitals, schools, police departments and other agencies. >Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth. See animated definitions of many corruption terms in our Anti-corruption Glossary. The link you provided measures the PERCEPTION of corruption. It is perfectly plausible for there to be a huge amount of corruption and very little perception of corruption depending on many factors. The source describes it thusly: >No. The CPI is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption, i.e. administrative and political corruption. It is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of entire nations or societies, or of their policies, or the activities of their private sector. Citizens of those countries/territories that score at the lower end of the CPI often show the same concern about and condemnation of corruption as the public in countries that perform strongly. Their data sources primarily asks 'experts' which they define differently (additionally, one specifically asks business executives, one includes the general public, and one doesn't clearly specify) whether they perceive corruption to be an issue. While the exact questions vary, these two seem like representative examples: >In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with the following and >First, how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which you are working? Second, has corruption decreased, stayed the same or increased compared with one year ago? Third, what aspects or implications of corruption in your country stand out to you as being particularly important? If the majority of the populace feels that seizure of drug profits is warranted, and the police generally label everything seized 'drug profits' than it is perfectly feasible that is an accepted narrative without any meaningful evidence being provided. They are the type of people who exist and are privileged by the normative power hierarchies in that society (hence the term 'expert' being applied to them by peers). These are the people least likely to experience that type of corruption/oppression...by design All of this comes down to the data they select. Your source uses the exact type of data which would hide corruption by this definition. That effect comes both through the selection of questions and the selection of people who will answer those questions. Their implementation of their definition of corruption largely results in a study of whether those with social capital feel like society treats them and their businesses fairly. It seems a poor metric of the types of systematic (designed) corruption experienced by others on a regular basis.
mulmen 9y ago
Surely this would require everyone to have perfect information at all times, otherwise how do we know if the law we conclude is wrong is based on something we didn't consider? We vote in elections, not with our actions. You're advocating anarchy.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Well that's why I think you should research the history behind the laws you're thinking of breaking, but I'd argue that it is more dangerous to blindly follow laws than to blindly ignore them, if you follow a simple "no theft" rule. Agency, life, property; if you take a broad definition, I'd argue that the only true crime is unilaterally taking from others. It's good to have due diligence on how your decisions affect others, and that's one possible function of a legal system, but it definitely is not the function of ours. It's like how the concept of "The Market" relies upon everyone having perfect information on every economic issue and decision. They don't, but we still use it. And sure, we suffer for that pretty regularly when we relax regulations too much, but what was that quote? "It's the worst system in the world except for all the other ones?"
- jstanley 9y ago
  And you're advocating blind subservience to authority. How can any authority be legitimate if the subordinates can't understand it?
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I'm arguing for democratic rule of law.
    - 8ytecoder 9y ago
      There's no democracy without civil disobedience - which includes going to jail for breaking the law. Almost every change in society has been brought about by someone "breaking" a law - escaping slavery, sitting in the front section of a bus, loving someone of the same sex,...etc. I can go on. Law plays catch-up with attitude changes and what we consider acceptable as a society. We may sometimes have to break the law first to fix it.
coliveira 9y ago
Not only this, but police forces are one of the few categories of workers where their union is praised and respected. This seems strange until you realize that the police is mostly structured to maintain the current status quo and oppress lower income people.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Correct. Police, firefighters and prison guard unions are good unions protecting us. Teachers unions are bad unions indoctrinating our youth with leftist ideology. That may explain why in the city I live in, the minimum educational requirements for the police 'academy' is a GED.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    It's not like education beyond that makes you a better officer.
    - freeone3000 9y ago
      Knowledge of the law would certainly help. Maybe a Bachelor's of Criminal Justice. Perhaps we can loosen that to related fields, and also allow Social Work or Civics or Pre-law. Maybe even just a general aptitude qualification, like flight attendants, and require an Associate's degree in literally anything. Education does make you a better person. Better people make better police officers.
      - SamReidHughes 9y ago
        Generally speaking education does not make you a better person. It can even make you a worse person than alternatives such as manual labor, working in a kitchen, or a job at a summer camp. Cops apparently don't need a two year course of study to understand the law well enough to do their jobs. Instead of spending years up front, an alternative is to spread that time throughout their career on basic stuff like fitness or gun training.
jancsika 9y ago
> If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! I feel like vaccine schedules are wrong, so I asked my pediatrician about them. I feel like global warming is a hoax, so I asked a scientist about it. I feel like a law is wrong, so I asked a legal expert about it. The next step to take is up to me, but in each case I'm confident I'd be starting with stronger footing that you would be with your process. Furthermore, I can pass that process on to others in a way that is less fragile and more efficient than your process. Ask your pediatrician. Ask your scientist colleague. Ask your law professor. In a world of good faith actors you'd still be reading primary research papers on epidemiology for years before moving to the second topic. In the real world you'd likely skip the necessary steps, risk making misguided decisions, and spreading that misguided decision-making process to others.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Yeah, good point.

cmurf 9y ago

This is classic old school Republicanism. The default state is to not care what the public thinks and to have no laws making such things illegal, and to have instead aggressive prosecutors and police who act like highwaymen. If you're rich you can afford a lawyer and buy your rights. If you're not, you get the default state which is fewer rights. This is how you build a two class society rather than a John Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" based society. In Conservativism, the very idea that a person's family name, bloodline, wealth, title, are irrelevant before the law is itself unfair: people aren't equal, certain family's are better, even some of them divinely superior, and the law should not force police, prosecutors, or judges to treat people equally. No one really says this outloud but it is the base ideology of conservatism and aristocracy. Not equality. And this predates the United State's version of it.

xupybd 9y ago
As a conservative I disagree with you entirely. In the eyes of the state all should be equal, any situation that exposes they're not treated as equal should be addressed. It is true that most on the right don't desire equal outcomes for all but equal opportunities. That doesn't mean some have a divine right to a better life. It simply means we want to reward the most talented, hard working and advantaged because doing so results in a more productive society. But there is a balance to make sure all the wealth doesn't end up in their hands.
- coliveira 9y ago
  Your definition of conservatism is at odds with reality. Rich people are actively trying to live their lives with minimum effort, so it is hard to argue that they are the most talented. Poor people have a hard time making their freedoms worth anything, and they're not been helped by any conservative. The main problem here is that conservative reasoning is circular: if you're rich you must in some way deserve it (explanations will be made for sure), and if you deserve you need to keep the wealth.
  - RightMillennial 9y ago
    You're describing society at large. This has nothing to due with "conservatism".

cjensen 9y ago

It might be legal. It might not. The problem is this needs to be challenged in court. Until the Supremes rule on this, it's all speculation. That said, I've never even heard a theory stated in support of why it might be lawful.

turc1656 9y ago
The theory behind it's lawfulness is that property doesn't have rights. That's why when the property is taken, the cases are named things like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" or "State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix". Those are real case names, BTW. They basically separate property from the person owning it with the argument that the property itself is guilty because it was used in commission of a crime, with or without the owner's knowledge. I didn't say it was a good theory. But that's basically what is boils down to. Personally, I find it repugnant and I do believe it is an egregious violation of our constitutional rights related to search and seizure. Also, the USSC has already ruled in part on this issue and the opinion was not great: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf Not only did they generally uphold the practice, but they weaseled out of ruling on other parts of it (not unusual for the USSC), this time because part of the argument presented was only first presented to the USSC and no lower court. So they basically said that since that other stuff hadn't seen a lower court, they weren't commenting on it.

awalton 9y ago

Yeah, really hard to believe we simply modernized the idea of the Highwayman. Even harder to believe that the police force is so corrupt in so many parts of this country that they were able to rebrand the tactic and get it written into laws as legal. Wait, this is 2017 right? None of that's hard to believe.

jstarfish 9y ago
The tale of former Governor Lester Maddox's campaign of harassment against a corrupt south Georgia police force is an amusing one. http://www.oxfordamerican.org/magazine/item/1023-the-ludowici-trap http://www.oxfordamerican.org/magazine/item/1023-the-ludowic... http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/ludowici.htm http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/ludowici.htm You know it's bad when a rural town attains national infamy in the pre-internet days. Besides gaming the stoplights, the police would hide behind billboards and trees with their radar guns and target out-of-state motorists with tickets for +1 mph over the limit. Since most were just passing through the town, nobody had the inclination to wait around for a court date to fight the tickets, and all were essentially forced to pay without a chance to contest it. He eventually succeeded in passing some legislation to curb the abuse. To this day local police have to sit in plain sight on flat ground (within a certain tolerance of grade) when running radar/lidar, can't write speeding tickets for less than 10 mph over the posted limit (does not apply to state troopers or school zones) and a slew of other technical nitpicks that make it easier to get "sane" speeding tickets dismissed.

SN76477 9y ago

I think that asset forfeiture is fair when found guilty. say you have commited fraud, asset forfeiture could be appropriate. What is important is that you must remain innocent until proven guilty.

SauciestGNU 9y ago
That's the important distinction between criminal and civil forfeiture as I understand it. Criminal forfeiture is when property is seized as proceeds from an unlawful act following a guilty verdict.