3 ms·

> 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 fighti

> 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 12y 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 12y 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.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense. But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense. US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d) Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
      - rhino369 12y ago
        It is my understanding that all the federal civil forfeiture statues included their own innocent owner defense since the 1970s when civil forfeiture was applied to drugs. The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.

rhino369 12y 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 12y 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.
- rhino369 12y ago
  I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense. But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense. US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d) Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      It is my understanding that all the federal civil forfeiture statues included their own innocent owner defense since the 1970s when civil forfeiture was applied to drugs. The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.