4 ms·

Nope, here are the rules: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ No time limit

Nope, here are the rules: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ No time limit nonsense, get a warrant. Charge them with a crime. That's the law no matter what the idiots running courthouses in this country think, your precedent has no power here.

readthenotes1 3y ago
It's more like: any assets taken by civil asset forfeiture should fund civics classes so that the people that are having their property stolen know just how anti-American that is.
- pydry 3y ago
  I think they know. If you polled the country a tiny fraction would say that they think it's a good thing.
  - tremon 3y ago
    It depends on how you frame the question. Asking "Should the police be allowed to seize large amounts of cash from a suspicious-looking (white guy/black guy/latino/hobo/terrorist/banker/politician)" will most likely get you a "yes" answer, as long as you pick the right target for your audience.
- deprecative 3y ago
  Civil forfeiture is a foundational part of the American way. We traded in humans at the start of our country. That has never stopped. Instead of being African Americans (or Black people generally) in current reality it's... our Black communities who we target and throw in prison which is the only exception. Then look at Capitalism. Exploiting labor to drain any opportunity of wealth building from the working class and transferring it to those with wealth. People have this twisted idea that America is a moral or ethical place. It's not. We live in a toxic culture and it has always been and it will continue to be. There is no escape.
jh00ker 3y ago
If I check a suitcase full of money on my flight, or if I pass it through TSA security, I must consent to being searched (without a warrant) in order to fly. It's not like I have a suitcase of money in my trunk and I've been pulled over by the police without cause and I can refuse to give consent. Therefore I don't think the 4 amendment applies. Isn't the argument for CAF that the mere possession of the large sum of money is just cause to confiscate it? That's why a time limit would work. DUring that time period, they could try to get a warrant. The judge would not give a warrant if that is the only evidence. Then the assets would be returned.
- maxbond 3y ago
  It also regularly happens that people are pulled over and subject to forfeiture. The first time I heard of it, it was an article about someone who was driving to pick up a car they had agreed to purchase over the internet. They had, iirc, something like $20k in their trunk, and the police seized it in a traffic stop.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  The Bill of Rights is a patchwork of conditional, wishy-washy broken promises, isn't it? If I sign up for an account on Facebook, then I agree to waive my first-amendment rights. If I walk into any number of stores or churches or government buildings, I agree to waive my second-amendment rights. Sixth amendment? Just keep redefining "speedy" and make enough excuses for trials delayed and justice denied. Tenth Amendment? If a state passes a law judged odious by the Federal Government, then kiss your funding sources bye-bye!
  - quandrum 3y ago
    A lot of your complaints are with the libertarian nature of our government. The constitution protects private dictators from interference by the government, not citizens from interference by private dictators. It’s an important distinction to remember in the USA
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    How does signing up for an account waive my 1st amendment rights? > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
specialist 3y ago
Right. Your point is obvious and correct. But. You naively assume judicial philosophy must be bound by rules, logic, common sense, ethics, public interest, or precedent. Strike: ~~The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. Further, property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.~~ Edit: To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries claims the Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. Further, they created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. So property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing. Worse, the rules for civil forfeiture are flipped. Whereas people charged in criminal court are presumed innocent until proven guilty, somehow property must be proven innocent. Apparently courts can prove a negative, even if logic cannot. IANAL. Trying to grok the judicial philosophies of the r/iamverysmart reactionaries breaks my brain. These helped me kinda grasp what's happening: Bennis v. Michigan "On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime." https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/ https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/ Civil versus criminal forfeiture "...assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The entire point is that the judicial philisphy is obviously wrong. The 4th ammendment gives individuals the protection from unreasonable siezure of property.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t. No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.
michaelmior 3y ago
> unreasonable searches and seizures Unfortunately, unreasonable is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying it's right, but some could plausibly interpret civil forfeiture as "reasonable."

readthenotes1 3y ago

It's more like: any assets taken by civil asset forfeiture should fund civics classes so that the people that are having their property stolen know just how anti-American that is.

pydry 3y ago
I think they know. If you polled the country a tiny fraction would say that they think it's a good thing.
- tremon 3y ago
  It depends on how you frame the question. Asking "Should the police be allowed to seize large amounts of cash from a suspicious-looking (white guy/black guy/latino/hobo/terrorist/banker/politician)" will most likely get you a "yes" answer, as long as you pick the right target for your audience.
deprecative 3y ago
Civil forfeiture is a foundational part of the American way. We traded in humans at the start of our country. That has never stopped. Instead of being African Americans (or Black people generally) in current reality it's... our Black communities who we target and throw in prison which is the only exception. Then look at Capitalism. Exploiting labor to drain any opportunity of wealth building from the working class and transferring it to those with wealth. People have this twisted idea that America is a moral or ethical place. It's not. We live in a toxic culture and it has always been and it will continue to be. There is no escape.

jh00ker 3y ago

If I check a suitcase full of money on my flight, or if I pass it through TSA security, I must consent to being searched (without a warrant) in order to fly. It's not like I have a suitcase of money in my trunk and I've been pulled over by the police without cause and I can refuse to give consent. Therefore I don't think the 4 amendment applies. Isn't the argument for CAF that the mere possession of the large sum of money is just cause to confiscate it? That's why a time limit would work. DUring that time period, they could try to get a warrant. The judge would not give a warrant if that is the only evidence. Then the assets would be returned.

maxbond 3y ago
It also regularly happens that people are pulled over and subject to forfeiture. The first time I heard of it, it was an article about someone who was driving to pick up a car they had agreed to purchase over the internet. They had, iirc, something like $20k in their trunk, and the police seized it in a traffic stop.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
The Bill of Rights is a patchwork of conditional, wishy-washy broken promises, isn't it? If I sign up for an account on Facebook, then I agree to waive my first-amendment rights. If I walk into any number of stores or churches or government buildings, I agree to waive my second-amendment rights. Sixth amendment? Just keep redefining "speedy" and make enough excuses for trials delayed and justice denied. Tenth Amendment? If a state passes a law judged odious by the Federal Government, then kiss your funding sources bye-bye!
- quandrum 3y ago
  A lot of your complaints are with the libertarian nature of our government. The constitution protects private dictators from interference by the government, not citizens from interference by private dictators. It’s an important distinction to remember in the USA
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  How does signing up for an account waive my 1st amendment rights? > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

specialist 3y ago

Right. Your point is obvious and correct. But. You naively assume judicial philosophy must be bound by rules, logic, common sense, ethics, public interest, or precedent. Strike: ~~The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. Further, property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.~~ Edit: To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries claims the Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. Further, they created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. So property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing. Worse, the rules for civil forfeiture are flipped. Whereas people charged in criminal court are presumed innocent until proven guilty, somehow property must be proven innocent. Apparently courts can prove a negative, even if logic cannot. IANAL. Trying to grok the judicial philosophies of the r/iamverysmart reactionaries breaks my brain. These helped me kinda grasp what's happening: Bennis v. Michigan "On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime." https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/ https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/ Civil versus criminal forfeiture "...assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

s1artibartfast 3y ago
The entire point is that the judicial philisphy is obviously wrong. The 4th ammendment gives individuals the protection from unreasonable siezure of property.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t. No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.

michaelmior 3y ago

> unreasonable searches and seizures Unfortunately, unreasonable is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying it's right, but some could plausibly interpret civil forfeiture as "reasonable."