4 ms·
"Under civil forfeiture laws, the person losing the property has to prove that the items were not used to commit crimes." That seems a bit backwards to me. I t
by neilparikh 15y ago
"Under civil forfeiture laws, the person losing the property has to prove that the items were not used to commit crimes."
That seems a bit backwards to me. I thought people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?
- anonymoushn 15y agoPeople are presumed innocent. To get around this, legal action is taken against the assets. Edit: This document contains some information about asset forfeiture http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/projects/esguidelines.pdf
- pyre 15y agoWhich is how you get stuff like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
- JeffL 15y agoNice. Another lesson in never talk to cops, and never consent to a search.
- beedogs 15y agoWow, brilliant explanation of the reversal decision by the appellate court in that one. "We reverse."
- slapshot 15y agoWikipedia quoted only the first paragraph of the opinion. The full thing is here: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf
- mindslight 15y agoSorry, that's just what the advertising materials say. Government interprets rights as damage and routes around them.
- gareim 15y agoI seem to remember reading in a business law textbook that the "innocent till proven guilty" only applies to criminal law. A quick Google search managed to pull up a Hacker News comment that's interesting to read as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483396 EDIT: Upon further reading, I'm wondering if this would fall under criminal law. But in the sentence, it mentions "civil forfeiture laws" and wouldn't that imply tort? I'm not a lawyer and have almost no experience in this. I hope a real lawyer will chime in because it's pretty fascinating.
- Retric 15y agoI don't think the founding fathers would have allowed the government to use "civil" laws lower standards at any point in time. But, our current systems has a lot of terrible precedent IMO. Which has enabled a huge end run around the constitution to continue with just a wink and a nod.
- AJ007 15y agoDespite the wonkiness on the global warming front, the Wall Street Journal has had really good coverage of civil forfeiture article coverage: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512253265073870.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651.... There are at least 400 federal statutes allowing civil forfeiture and new ones are being added all the time. So yes, since it is backwards, it means if you have something of value an individual is holding for you, it can be seized. In the above article's case, it was an armored car company holding his small business's cash. http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC090_FORFEI_NS_20110821181226.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC090_FORFEI_NS... Asset forfeiture along with plea bargaining coercion (say you did this, or else you just might go to prison for decades) have truly turned the United States government in to nothing more than an organized mafia in which the participants hardly need to prove anything in a court of law in order to get their way.
- erichocean 15y agoPursuing learning in this area will only make you extremely angry. Government at its worst.