How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

It is still absent due process

You don’t have to be convicted only accused

Due process doesn’t apply because the issue is an asset used illegally, separate and apart from the owner.

In Bennis the automobile was used unlawfully – a fact not in dispute – having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of its owner.

Asset forfeiture is not a punitive measure taken by the state, such as a fine or imprisonment, hence no due process requirement because an individual’s life or liberty is not imperiled via criminal prosecution; nor does Takings Clause jurisprudence apply because the asset was used unlawfully or is otherwise designated to be contraband.

It’s understood that asset forfeiture is perceived to be a punitive measure by the state, but as a fact of law it is not.

The political – not judicial – process is the appropriate means by which to address asset forfeiture abuse, by having such laws amended or repealed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

Prohibition is unconstitutional; any individual and natural rights view, supports the People, not Government.

Thank you Capt. non sequitur

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

I think a strong argument could be made that it does violate due process, because of the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof requirement as it relates to supposed criminal law violations.

 

[WinterBorn]

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

I think a strong argument could be made that it does violate due process, because of the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof requirement as it relates to supposed criminal law violations.

The problem is that the gov't sees the assets as separate entities. It is not The US v. Your Cash, it is The US v. $12,000 in US currency, or The US v. A Men's Rolex Watch. The legal system does not see it as your property, but property.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

I think a strong argument could be made that it does violate due process, because of the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof requirement as it relates to supposed criminal law violations.

The problem is that the gov't sees the assets as separate entities. It is not The US v. Your Cash, it is The US v. $12,000 in US currency, or The US v. A Men's Rolex Watch. The legal system does not see it as your property, but property.

For the sake of argument -

If the assets are a separate legal entity, shouldn't that separate property entity have a right to "beyond a reasonable doubt" due process, in regards to its involvement in a crime?

 

[Marion Morrison]

It violates the 4th amendment to hell and back. No sense beating around the bush.

 

[Montrovant]

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

I think a strong argument could be made that it does violate due process, because of the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof requirement as it relates to supposed criminal law violations.

The problem is that the gov't sees the assets as separate entities. It is not The US v. Your Cash, it is The US v. $12,000 in US currency, or The US v. A Men's Rolex Watch. The legal system does not see it as your property, but property.

For the sake of argument -

If the assets are a separate legal entity, shouldn't that separate property entity have a right to "beyond a reasonable doubt" due process, in regards to its involvement in a crime?

I would guess that the answer is no, as the property is not a person with Constitutional rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

I think a strong argument could be made that it does violate due process, because of the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof requirement as it relates to supposed criminal law violations.

The problem is that the gov't sees the assets as separate entities. It is not The US v. Your Cash, it is The US v. $12,000 in US currency, or The US v. A Men's Rolex Watch. The legal system does not see it as your property, but property.

For the sake of argument -

If the assets are a separate legal entity, shouldn't that separate property entity have a right to "beyond a reasonable doubt" due process, in regards to its involvement in a crime?

I would guess that the answer is no, as the property is not a person with Constitutional rights.

Correct.

 

[Moonglow]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Two states have made this form of robbery illegal..Iowa and Wyoming..

 

[danielpalos]

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

No, the ruling doesn't authorize the taking of private property absence due process, the property must be used in the commission of a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.

Prohibition is unconstitutional; any individual and natural rights view, supports the People, not Government.

Thank you Capt. non sequitur

natural and individual rights should preclude this whole area of law.

 

[danielpalos]

the natural right to acquire and possess forms of private property means Regulation, not Prohibition.

natural and individual rights to acquire and possess private property, also pre-date, our State Constitutions.