Efforts ro Roll Back Property Forfeiture Abuse by the Government

[JimBowie1958]

It is still happening all over the country and it is legal theft.

Policing for Profit? Lawmakers, advocates raise alarm at growing gov?t power to seize property | Fox News

Civil forfeiture is when police and prosecutors seize property, cars or cash from someone they suspect of wrongdoing. It differs from criminal forfeiture cases, where prosecutors typically must prove a person is guilty or reach a settlement before freezing funds or selling property. In civil forfeiture, authorities don’t have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back.

“You breed a culture of 'take first, ask questions later,'” Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, told FoxNews.com. “It’s thuggish behavior.”

Law enforcement officials argue that civil forfeiture powers give them an effective tool against lawbreakers. Freezing funds and seizing assets allow them to hit alleged criminals, frequently suspected drug dealers, where it hurts the most – their wallets.

Alarmed civil rights groups and libertarians are rallying against the practice. Salzman's group defended Caswell and won case in federal court last year.

But not every target of civil forfeiture can afford the fight.

In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice created its Asset Forfeiture Fund. One year later, the fund -- which holds the proceeds from seized property and is available to be divvied out to law enforcement agencies -- brought in $93.7 million. In 2008, the amount had ballooned to $1.6 billion. In 2013, it reached $6.3 billion.

Across the country, many states are stepping up efforts to curb civil forfeiture abuse.

In Tennessee, local law enforcement agencies get to keep 100 percent of all property seized through civil forfeiture – an incentive some say can tempt police to go after property for the wrong reasons. Rep. Barrett Rich, a former state trooper, introduced legislation last year that would eliminate the practice in the Volunteer State.

The original version of Rich's bill would have required authorities to obtain a warrant before seizing property. Forfeiture and title transfer of property would take place only under due process of law and only if the owner of the property had been prosecuted and convicted. Rich's bill underwent amendments that, in the end, amounted to more modest reforms to state law.

“We shouldn’t completely get rid of civil forfeiture,” Rich told FoxNews.com. “It’s a valuable tool for law enforcement, but it is also ripe for abuse.”

In other states, the fight for reform has been even harder.

 

[westwall]

They should have never allowed that crap in the first place.

 

[The Professor]

They should have never allowed that crap in the first place.

I agree.

The Constitution of the United States
Amendment XIV, Section 1

…. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Apparently, the government has a perverted definition of both “due process” and “equal protection.” All I can say is that they didn't pull this shit back in the 60s. Unfortunately, too many people stood by and did nothing while the government grew larger, stronger and more corrupt. If it's not stopped soon its power will be absolute.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They should have never allowed that crap in the first place.

Since the working class of the West is divided against itself on cultural issues and ideological differences, the corporations and the wealthy can pillage as much as they want from us under the color of law.