5 ms·

De jure, isn't it possible to recover your effects if you're not actually convicted? The process might be too complicated, but it might be possible enough to no

by rtpg 12y ago

De jure, isn't it possible to recover your effects if you're not actually convicted? The process might be too complicated, but it might be possible enough to not infringe on this. I guess the question is whether civil forfeiture meets the due process requirements. In many civil rights cases, we get into the difficulty of processes (something might be de jure possible but de facto impossible/extremely hard to go through). The main issue with trying to go after civil forfeiture in court is that the gov't could simply give you back your goods if you threaten to bring it to court, and you suddenly lose standing

joering2 12y ago
Knowing how long it takes to sue the government... what do you want to do with 2008 Mercedes that is 17 years old??
- rtpg 12y ago
  The question would be more about challenging the core of the law, not about getting your car back.
  - markbao 12y ago
    For those that have the money to pursue a lawsuit for the principle of it. Most don't take the time or have the money, or the cost–benefit makes the lawsuit more expensive than the asset itself.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    You'd have to have the resources to challenge this on principle, which might be hard to come by if a lot of your money and possessions were recently seized. Furthermore, for asset forfeiture, police departments tend to prey on the weak in the first place, so they are less likely to challenge it - or will give up the challenge once they receive back a pittance from these thugs.
  - adventured 12y ago
    That's part of the reason the cops don't mess with rich people. There are consequences to doing so. They know the line on who they can or can't screw-over without stirring up trouble. You'd need some very rich and or powerful people to be interested in this problem. Soros has taken a specific interest in the prison system in the US, when it comes to drug laws and punishment extent; maybe someone like that will pick this cause up.
    - kika 12y ago
      Crowdfunding for law making (and un-making)?
philipn 12y ago
It's also difficult because in a civil case you're not entitled to a state-funded attorney, so you're going to have to shell out a good chunk of change to challenge the case. Which, of course, you may not have as your assets were just seized. You're also facing the "preponderance of the evidence" civil burden rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which makes it more likely you'd lose in court.
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  So, the state seizes your property over what's presumably illegal behavior on your part, and it is not considered a criminal case? Isn't civil law about disputes between individuals as opposed as individual vs the state? Should it be allowed for the police to bring up a civil lawsuit?
  - smsm42 12y ago
    The state can bring civil lawsuits. In fact, many agencies like EPA or Attorney General do that all the time.
    - jeffdavis 12y ago
      In my opinion, you should be provided an attorney in those cases, as well.
      - couchand 12y ago
        To be clear, the vast, vast majority of such cases are against corporations, not individuals.
        jeffdavis 12y ago
        Perhaps today, that's true. Five years from now, civil trials, where one party is the government, might be used regularly as a way to circumvent the protections afforded criminal defendants.
- 12y ago

by rtpg 12y ago

joering2 12y ago

Knowing how long it takes to sue the government... what do you want to do with 2008 Mercedes that is 17 years old??

rtpg 12y ago
The question would be more about challenging the core of the law, not about getting your car back.
- markbao 12y ago
  For those that have the money to pursue a lawsuit for the principle of it. Most don't take the time or have the money, or the cost–benefit makes the lawsuit more expensive than the asset itself.
- deciplex 12y ago
  You'd have to have the resources to challenge this on principle, which might be hard to come by if a lot of your money and possessions were recently seized. Furthermore, for asset forfeiture, police departments tend to prey on the weak in the first place, so they are less likely to challenge it - or will give up the challenge once they receive back a pittance from these thugs.
- adventured 12y ago
  That's part of the reason the cops don't mess with rich people. There are consequences to doing so. They know the line on who they can or can't screw-over without stirring up trouble. You'd need some very rich and or powerful people to be interested in this problem. Soros has taken a specific interest in the prison system in the US, when it comes to drug laws and punishment extent; maybe someone like that will pick this cause up.
  - kika 12y ago
    Crowdfunding for law making (and un-making)?

philipn 12y ago

It's also difficult because in a civil case you're not entitled to a state-funded attorney, so you're going to have to shell out a good chunk of change to challenge the case. Which, of course, you may not have as your assets were just seized. You're also facing the "preponderance of the evidence" civil burden rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which makes it more likely you'd lose in court.

lazaroclapp 12y ago
So, the state seizes your property over what's presumably illegal behavior on your part, and it is not considered a criminal case? Isn't civil law about disputes between individuals as opposed as individual vs the state? Should it be allowed for the police to bring up a civil lawsuit?
- smsm42 12y ago
  The state can bring civil lawsuits. In fact, many agencies like EPA or Attorney General do that all the time.
  - jeffdavis 12y ago
    In my opinion, you should be provided an attorney in those cases, as well.
    - couchand 12y ago
      To be clear, the vast, vast majority of such cases are against corporations, not individuals.
      - jeffdavis 12y ago
        Perhaps today, that's true. Five years from now, civil trials, where one party is the government, might be used regularly as a way to circumvent the protections afforded criminal defendants.
12y ago