https://www.foxnews.com/media/...ecide-constitutional

I am against civil 4 fitcher in general, especially with a warrant specifically prohibiting actions

For those that dont want to read fox news, Hannah Lambert had a story on it also.

I'm agin' it, the government has no business taking property it hasn't linked to a crime.

It’s amazing we let government do this to people

Sanctioned, legal criminality!!!!

And on the local level in many places, when a person rightly defends themselves with a 2A action, their weapons and ammo are confiscated and never returned.

This is wrong.

If the people had sense enough to simply bury their valuables in the back yard, they wouldn't have a problem. Bill

I’m not necessarily against civil asset forfeiture as much as the current methodology.

In my mind, your property should be as protected as your person under law. That’s hardly unusual thinking as several of the founders expressed it as well.

If they need a conviction or formal due process to detain your person, they should have the same for your property.

If you have either been found not guilty or not charged with a crime, your assets should be returned in fundamentally the same state they were taken in and interest paid for cash… at the same rate the government charges for late payments.

It’s the abuse of the seizure more than the seizure itself that bothers me.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I’m not necessarily against civil asset forfeiture as much as the current methodology.

In my mind, your property should be as protected as your person under law. That’s hardly unusual thinking as several of the founders expressed it as well.

If they need a conviction or formal due process to detain your person, they should have the same for your property.

If you have either been found not guilty or not charged with a crime, your assets should be returned in fundamentally the same state they were taken in and interest paid for cash… at the same rate the government charges for late payments.

It’s the abuse of the seizure more than the seizure itself that bothers me.

+1

I got pulled over in Timpson (famously a civil forfeiture town) between houston and shreveport - johnny law pulled me over for my tag light "being out" - he wanted to search my car. i got my camera (this was before "smart phones") and recorded the event, including walking back to check my light -- surprise, surprise, it was fine - i pointed this out to johnny law ON CAM and asked him for his legit reason for pulling me over .. he again stated he THOUGHT my light was out - i was an a$$ to him, in reading him the reverse riot act, blah blah blah -- i did hve a couple grand on me at the time, as my nephew wanted to sell me a 4 wheeler/atv - if i hadn't been as strident with johnny law, i do presume he would have "impounded" my cash - as they were KNOWN for it in his town. Utter balderdash, as it's also known as STEALING

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
It’s amazing we let government do this to people

How does one stop them since Congress doesn't seem to care.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I got pulled over in Timpson (famously a civil forfeiture town) between houston and shreveport - johnny law pulled me over for my tag light "being out" - he wanted to search my car. i got my camera (this was before "smart phones") and recorded the event, including walking back to check my light -- surprise, surprise, it was fine - i pointed this out to johnny law ON CAM and asked him for his legit reason for pulling me over .. he again stated he THOUGHT my light was out - i was an a$$ to him, in reading him the reverse riot act, blah blah blah -- i did hve a couple grand on me at the time, as my nephew wanted to sell me a 4 wheeler/atv - if i hadn't been as strident with johnny law, i do presume he would have "impounded" my cash - as they were KNOWN for it in his town. Utter balderdash, as it's also known as STEALING

Agree totally with that.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I got pulled over in Timpson (famously a civil forfeiture town) between houston and shreveport - johnny law pulled me over for my tag light "being out" - he wanted to search my car. i got my camera (this was before "smart phones") and recorded the event, including walking back to check my light -- surprise, surprise, it was fine - i pointed this out to johnny law ON CAM and asked him for his legit reason for pulling me over .. he again stated he THOUGHT my light was out - i was an a$$ to him, in reading him the reverse riot act, blah blah blah -- i did hve a couple grand on me at the time, as my nephew wanted to sell me a 4 wheeler/atv - if i hadn't been as strident with johnny law, i do presume he would have "impounded" my cash - as they were KNOWN for it in his town. Utter balderdash, as it's also known as STEALING

Agree totally with that.

BASTARDS!!!

https://youtu.be/rJd4Q4u5cqU

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I’m not necessarily against civil asset forfeiture as much as the current methodology.

In my mind, your property should be as protected as your person under law. That’s hardly unusual thinking as several of the founders expressed it as well.

If they need a conviction or formal due process to detain your person, they should have the same for your property.

If you have either been found not guilty or not charged with a crime, your assets should be returned in fundamentally the same state they were taken in and interest paid for cash… at the same rate the government charges for late payments.

It’s the abuse of the seizure more than the seizure itself that bothers me.

+1

That is just it. There is due process given. It is just significantly less than what is required to convict you in some, maybe most jurisdictions. Hence, the reason it is called civil.

I have made forfeiture part of a few agreed diversions or dismissals. In KY real property forfeiture requires a conviction.

Here is why you cannot pass a law that requires forfeiture only in the case of conviction:

You as a convicted are arrested and hanged w drugs and guns.

The stop or search is very questionable. More than likely precedent says the search and all evidence thereof is inadmissible. The state loses the suppression hearing. You do not want the system to just give the illegal gun and drugs back.

The above is a basic, easy example of why no jurisdiction requires a conviction to forfeit everything.

And this is the problem with lawyers.

The system has taken something that has very limited applicability and turned it into a mockery.

Frankly, with the gun thing, I would say give them back… as possession of an illegal weapon is a crime, let them take it, and then properly arrest them and charge that crime.

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with all asset forfeiture, but it has been so abused that it has become necessary to cut its use to stop the abuse.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I’m not necessarily against civil asset forfeiture as much as the current methodology.

In my mind, your property should be as protected as your person under law. That’s hardly unusual thinking as several of the founders expressed it as well.

If they need a conviction or formal due process to detain your person, they should have the same for your property.

If you have either been found not guilty or not charged with a crime, your assets should be returned in fundamentally the same state they were taken in and interest paid for cash… at the same rate the government charges for late payments.

It’s the abuse of the seizure more than the seizure itself that bothers me.

+1

That is just it. There is due process given. It is just significantly less than what is required to convict you in some, maybe most jurisdictions. Hence, the reason it is called civil.

I have made forfeiture part of a few agreed diversions or dismissals. In KY real property forfeiture requires a conviction.

Here is why you cannot pass a law that requires forfeiture only in the case of conviction:

You as a convicted are arrested and hanged w drugs and guns.

The stop or search is very questionable. More than likely precedent says the search and all evidence thereof is inadmissible. The state loses the suppression hearing. You do not want the system to just give the illegal gun and drugs back.

The above is a basic, easy example of why no jurisdiction requires a conviction to forfeit everything.

I submit your example is a mockery. So, we should put an illegally possessed firearm on the street. We should hope all goes well. Sounds like a smaller version of the Eric Holder gun scheme to Mexico to me.

Oh, I see you did not address the illegally seized drugs. They both have to be subject to forfeiture that requires less due process than it takes to imprison you.

Since, we are talking about FBI, Congress can pass a law limiting the application, or the Fed Judges could push back subject to an abuse of discretion appellate review.

I believe the judge made the warrant very narrow to begin with. The FBI over stepped it, and still do not want to return the items.
That is the way it read in Hannah Lamberts article on the issue.

Simply put.

Say ok, you are welcome to come to the PD and pick them up.

They do so.

You then arrest them for illegal possession of an item.

Pretty open and shut case.

There is probable cause to know they have the item, as they signed a form to obtain it.

You already have determined it was not legally possessed.

Turn them around and arrest them (or the lawyer picking it up) for illegal possession. Sure, it’s a lesser crime, but it is a crime.

The drugs are a bit different. Since they want to legalize them, I guess it’s ok to give them back… a down side to the goofy legalization route.

While I can see someone going down and demanding a legal item or cash, I find it hard to believe someone would go down and demand an illegal item.


I’m talking civil asset forfeiture in general.


The specific case, I don’t see how the FBI can’t get in trouble. They ignored the specifics of the warrant. Unfortunately, there is no personal responsibility on the personnel involved.

why do we run to the absurd?
the feds didn't have authority to confiscate this cash - full stop -- give it back -- again, full stop. If they want to file charges on ill gotten gains, great, do that - but with ZERO proof, it's a pretty clear 4a violation

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/...ecide-constitutional

I am against civil 4 fitcher in general, especially with a warrant specifically prohibiting actions

Ripe for abuse...