3 ms·
> literally legal highway robbery by police, that would be great. That's not true. I believe just the burden of proof is more similar to civil (preponderance
by cma 6y ago
> literally legal highway robbery by police, that would be great.
That's not true. I believe just the burden of proof is more similar to civil (preponderance of the evidence) than criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt). It still seems unreasonable, but not literally legal highway robbery.
- chrismcb 6y agoThat isn't my understanding of civil forfeiture. Basically they accuse your stuff and take it. Now you have to convince the court that it isn't I'll gotten gains.... That is if you have the time and money to fight it.
- adgjlsfhk1 6y agoThis is false. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture. Once the assets are seized, there is a burden of proof on the owner to prove that the property was not guilty.
- cma 6y agoI should have said standard of proof instead of burden of proof. I believe it is under a preponderance standard (>50%), not a beyond a reasonable doubt (that it isn't guilty) standard. Maybe in some states it is that you would only keep whatever fraction of certainty you proved, as is done in civil disputes in some places?