4 ms·
While this is an accurate assessment of its legality, it’s not a particularly helpful response to the philosophy. And whether intended or not, it has the effect
by eyelidlessness 3y ago
While this is an accurate assessment of its legality, it’s not a particularly helpful response to the philosophy. And whether intended or not, it has the effect of implying the distinction may justify the practice.
From my perspective, “cops can take your stuff unless you prove your innocence because it’s not a criminal proceeding” is a distinction without a difference. Cops shouldn’t be able to just take your stuff.
- Joker_vD 3y agoI don't argue with that! I just explained how it was possible to implement it in law in the first place. But yes, it absolutely must have been a criminal procedure, as it is in some (many?) other countries.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- abigail95 3y agoIt's not an accurate assesssment of its legality. The government has to prove suspicion of wrongdoing on a preponderence of the evidence. Edit: You can show up to a civil forfeiture case as a claimant, refuse to answer other questions under the 5A, and walk out with the goods if the judge doesn't think there's any wrongdoing.