4 ms·

> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was

> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect? > Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Crito 13y ago
You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
- mercurial 13y ago
  That's legal sophistry.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime. Thus, even if they don't have enough evidence to pin you to the crime, they can prove you don't have a legitimate right the property.
    - Crito 13y ago
      > "You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime." The meaning of "prove" in this case is the far more permissive "preponderance of the evidence" standard. But of course you already know that. You are lying by admission.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Preponderance of the evidence is the usual evidentiary standard in civil and property suits.
        ericd 13y ago
        Fine, but having most/all of your net worth seized by the state is an extremely damaging sentence, and the bar should be higher.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence. I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.
        ericd 13y ago
        I think that the state attacking a citizen should have a higher bar, not necessarily that all civil suits should (though I do think that as the penalties get steeper as a percentage of someone's net worth, the bar for proving wrongdoing should rise, or the judge should scale the damage award by the level of certainty provided by the evidence). Agreed that many bad ideas have some plausible justifications.
        rayiner 13y ago
        we aren't talking about damages awards or punishment. We're talking about suits to contest the ownership of property. if I claim in a civil suit that you obtain your house by fraud from me what should be my standard of proof?
        13y ago
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Or just extort someone into forfeiting their property rights. "Here, sign over the rights to your property and I won't take you to jail."
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Most of the US legal practices regarding the constitution are legal sophistry of the worst kind. Take the "right to bear arms" for example, which is clearly stated that it applies to citizen militias (something important at the time it was written). Through tons of applied sophistry it was decided that it also means the right for every redneck to buy military grade automatic weapons for "self-protection"...
    - baddox 13y ago
      The second amendment isn't a great example, since everyone on both sides of that debate claim that the other's constitutional justification is sophistry.
    - Perdition 13y ago
      The import and sale to civilians of new automatic weapons has been banned in the US since 1986. Very few rednecks own automatic weapons.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      You're the one applying sophistry here, friend.
    - marvin 13y ago
      I hear that being under the influence of alcohol while underage is illegal since you are "in possession" of alcohol: Your body is a container, and it contains alcohol. Is this true?
      - jroll 13y ago
        Yes, I've been convicted of this. :/ If I remember correctly, the legal limit is 0.02 for underage people, to account for mouthwash etc.
      - kcg 13y ago
        That was, and still is, the case where I went to school in New Hampshire. The decision to treat the body as a container is made at the state level, I believe (as the drinking age is determined by the individual states, although effectively federally-mandated by the threat of withholding significant federal funding).

Crito 13y ago

You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States

mercurial 13y ago
That's legal sophistry.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime. Thus, even if they don't have enough evidence to pin you to the crime, they can prove you don't have a legitimate right the property.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > "You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime." The meaning of "prove" in this case is the far more permissive "preponderance of the evidence" standard. But of course you already know that. You are lying by admission.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Preponderance of the evidence is the usual evidentiary standard in civil and property suits.
      - ericd 13y ago
        Fine, but having most/all of your net worth seized by the state is an extremely damaging sentence, and the bar should be higher.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence. I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.
        ericd 13y ago
        I think that the state attacking a citizen should have a higher bar, not necessarily that all civil suits should (though I do think that as the penalties get steeper as a percentage of someone's net worth, the bar for proving wrongdoing should rise, or the judge should scale the damage award by the level of certainty provided by the evidence). Agreed that many bad ideas have some plausible justifications.
        rayiner 13y ago
        we aren't talking about damages awards or punishment. We're talking about suits to contest the ownership of property. if I claim in a civil suit that you obtain your house by fraud from me what should be my standard of proof?
        13y ago
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Or just extort someone into forfeiting their property rights. "Here, sign over the rights to your property and I won't take you to jail."
- coldtea 13y ago
  Most of the US legal practices regarding the constitution are legal sophistry of the worst kind. Take the "right to bear arms" for example, which is clearly stated that it applies to citizen militias (something important at the time it was written). Through tons of applied sophistry it was decided that it also means the right for every redneck to buy military grade automatic weapons for "self-protection"...
  - baddox 13y ago
    The second amendment isn't a great example, since everyone on both sides of that debate claim that the other's constitutional justification is sophistry.
  - Perdition 13y ago
    The import and sale to civilians of new automatic weapons has been banned in the US since 1986. Very few rednecks own automatic weapons.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    You're the one applying sophistry here, friend.
  - marvin 13y ago
    I hear that being under the influence of alcohol while underage is illegal since you are "in possession" of alcohol: Your body is a container, and it contains alcohol. Is this true?
    - jroll 13y ago
      Yes, I've been convicted of this. :/ If I remember correctly, the legal limit is 0.02 for underage people, to account for mouthwash etc.
    - kcg 13y ago
      That was, and still is, the case where I went to school in New Hampshire. The decision to treat the body as a container is made at the state level, I believe (as the drinking age is determined by the individual states, although effectively federally-mandated by the threat of withholding significant federal funding).