4 ms·

That’s because forfeiture is a civil claim against assets not a criminal procedure against a defendant. It’s argued that those assets were not the defendant’s t

That’s because forfeiture is a civil claim against assets not a criminal procedure against a defendant. It’s argued that those assets were not the defendant’s to begin with.

crooked-v 4y ago
Except for all the cases when they obviously are, making the whole process a blatant end run around the fourth amendment.
oh_sigh 4y ago
That would be fine with me if the onus was on the government to prove the assets weren't legally acquired. Now it is up to the person to prove the assets were legally acquired.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  I’m just explaining the rationale. At this point it’s a moral discussion rather than legal: does the “war on drugs” et al trump individual rights? If yes, you’d be in favor of forfeiture, if not, you’d be against.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    Except it's not really a moral discussion, it's a legal one—and the most fundamental laws of the country obviously ban the tactic. The article uses a lot of sophistry to try and argue that the plain and obvious intended reading of the Fourth Amendment isn't correct, and that's obviously nonsense, both in a vacuum and in the context of when and why it was written.
    - SnowHill9902 4y ago
      Laws codify the underlying morality of a society so they are not divorced and independent one from the other. There may be a significant lag between both, though and at times one may lead the other.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    No. With no conviction, there is no legitimate claim of a crime. Very often the confiscation is not connected to an indictment, or even an arrest. "Oh, you have cash! We'll take that, you're free to go. Scram." Sometimes the cop just wants your Camaro.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Sure - I was just saying my problems with the current implementation. I'm not even against civil forfeiture as a premise - merely how it is implemented now, where one needs to prove something that may be impossible. Imagine if you take $25/week out of your paycheck and put it under your mattress. 10 years later you take that money and go to buy a truck, but you're pulled over and the cops take all of your money. How exactly can you prove the money is legitimately yours? If the burden of proof was put on the accuser(cops), then they would need to show that you're a drug dealer or something, not just some guy who learned financial habits from a member of the old school of savings.
    - chrismcb 4y ago
      How can you be for civil forfeiture? What is the argument for it?
ncmncm 4y ago
A thief can always explain why he was perfectly justified in stealing.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Probably won’t cut it.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    Unless the thief is a cop, of course.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
bcrosby95 4y ago
Its basis is in abandoned property that was likely illegally obtained, where they can't find an owner. Such as a ship in a harbor full of illegally imported goods. It's been stretched to include having $2k in cash in your car while driving.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  According to the article, it looks as if it originates in admiralty "prize" law, which seems to be about buccaneers like Francis Drake; and later extended to the colonies, to allow seizure of ships and their contents trading with a colony without authorisation (e.g. not a British ship, or duty not paid).
chmod600 4y ago
In a civil suit, you don't get the assets until you win (and maybe not even then). Here, the government takes them by force immediately, and you have to fight for them back. Not the same thing.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  And you have to fight even for the ability to prove you have "standing" to fight for them back.
kingcharles 4y ago
No, "in rem" civil forfeiture says that the items are a guilty party in the criminal action. It is no different to putting a person in pretrial detention until their case reaches trial.
phkahler 4y ago
>> That’s because forfeiture is a civil claim against assets not a criminal procedure against a defendant. The constitution makes no distinction between criminal or civil here. It makes a blanket statement that the government won't take your stuff.

That’s because forfeiture is a civil claim against assets not a criminal procedure against a defendant. It’s argued that those assets were not the defendant’s to begin with.

crooked-v 4y ago

Except for all the cases when they obviously are, making the whole process a blatant end run around the fourth amendment.

oh_sigh 4y ago

That would be fine with me if the onus was on the government to prove the assets weren't legally acquired. Now it is up to the person to prove the assets were legally acquired.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
I’m just explaining the rationale. At this point it’s a moral discussion rather than legal: does the “war on drugs” et al trump individual rights? If yes, you’d be in favor of forfeiture, if not, you’d be against.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  Except it's not really a moral discussion, it's a legal one—and the most fundamental laws of the country obviously ban the tactic. The article uses a lot of sophistry to try and argue that the plain and obvious intended reading of the Fourth Amendment isn't correct, and that's obviously nonsense, both in a vacuum and in the context of when and why it was written.
  - SnowHill9902 4y ago
    Laws codify the underlying morality of a society so they are not divorced and independent one from the other. There may be a significant lag between both, though and at times one may lead the other.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  No. With no conviction, there is no legitimate claim of a crime. Very often the confiscation is not connected to an indictment, or even an arrest. "Oh, you have cash! We'll take that, you're free to go. Scram." Sometimes the cop just wants your Camaro.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Sure - I was just saying my problems with the current implementation. I'm not even against civil forfeiture as a premise - merely how it is implemented now, where one needs to prove something that may be impossible. Imagine if you take $25/week out of your paycheck and put it under your mattress. 10 years later you take that money and go to buy a truck, but you're pulled over and the cops take all of your money. How exactly can you prove the money is legitimately yours? If the burden of proof was put on the accuser(cops), then they would need to show that you're a drug dealer or something, not just some guy who learned financial habits from a member of the old school of savings.
  - chrismcb 4y ago
    How can you be for civil forfeiture? What is the argument for it?

ncmncm 4y ago

A thief can always explain why he was perfectly justified in stealing.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Probably won’t cut it.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  Unless the thief is a cop, of course.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

bcrosby95 4y ago

Its basis is in abandoned property that was likely illegally obtained, where they can't find an owner. Such as a ship in a harbor full of illegally imported goods. It's been stretched to include having $2k in cash in your car while driving.

denton-scratch 4y ago
According to the article, it looks as if it originates in admiralty "prize" law, which seems to be about buccaneers like Francis Drake; and later extended to the colonies, to allow seizure of ships and their contents trading with a colony without authorisation (e.g. not a British ship, or duty not paid).

chmod600 4y ago

In a civil suit, you don't get the assets until you win (and maybe not even then). Here, the government takes them by force immediately, and you have to fight for them back. Not the same thing.

FireBeyond 4y ago
And you have to fight even for the ability to prove you have "standing" to fight for them back.

kingcharles 4y ago

No, "in rem" civil forfeiture says that the items are a guilty party in the criminal action. It is no different to putting a person in pretrial detention until their case reaches trial.

phkahler 4y ago

>> That’s because forfeiture is a civil claim against assets not a criminal procedure against a defendant. The constitution makes no distinction between criminal or civil here. It makes a blanket statement that the government won't take your stuff.