10 ms·

Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.

by VieElm 11y ago

URSpider94 11y ago
Oh it has been, many many times. I can't explain the jurisprudence behind it, but this is nothing new.
MCRed 11y ago
It has been, but it lost. I don't remember the case offhand though. That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.
remarkEon 11y ago
Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf
- sukilot 11y ago
  That quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  What about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime. It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.
rhino369 11y ago
It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place. But you do get the due process after the fact. Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money. There probably should be some quick safeguards put in place to make sure the cops aren't just stealing cash for no reason forcing a court hearing to get it back. But the whole process is a lot less thieving that WAPO depicts.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive. NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court. In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees. Though I'd support making the government pay attorneys fees in cases where the money was found not to be illegal. That should prevent government from just going around and stealing money in bad faith.
    - rgbrenner 11y ago
      This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.
rgbrenner 11y ago
It has been challenged.. there's a case history on this page: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture
mark-r 11y ago
I've never understood how this could possibly be held constitutional. It's just so at odds with everything I've ever believed about our justice system. The abuses seem to get worse every day, and it just depresses me.

Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.

by VieElm 11y ago

Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.

URSpider94 11y ago

Oh it has been, many many times. I can't explain the jurisprudence behind it, but this is nothing new.

MCRed 11y ago

It has been, but it lost. I don't remember the case offhand though. That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.

remarkEon 11y ago

Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf

sukilot 11y ago
That quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.
Pyxl101 11y ago
What about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime. It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.

rhino369 11y ago

It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place. But you do get the due process after the fact. Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money. There probably should be some quick safeguards put in place to make sure the cops aren't just stealing cash for no reason forcing a court hearing to get it back. But the whole process is a lot less thieving that WAPO depicts.

simoncion 11y ago
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive. NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.
- rhino369 11y ago
  This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court. In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees. Though I'd support making the government pay attorneys fees in cases where the money was found not to be illegal. That should prevent government from just going around and stealing money in bad faith.
  - rgbrenner 11y ago
    This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.

rgbrenner 11y ago

It has been challenged.. there's a case history on this page: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture

mark-r 11y ago

I've never understood how this could possibly be held constitutional. It's just so at odds with everything I've ever believed about our justice system. The abuses seem to get worse every day, and it just depresses me.