How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

[WinterBorn]

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 Thumbs]

they were allowed to take everything from actual criminals, so moving onto non-criminals was just natural.


ya know what will fix it?


more government.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no problem with criminals losing the money they earned committing crimes. But taking money and property from someone when no charges have even been filed? That is bullshit.

 

[Taz]

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.

Ain't Amurricca Great Again?

 

[Kosh]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

 

[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.

It's not legal but no conservatives whined about it like when they mention the second amendment...

 

[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.

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

It started during Reagan...

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

It started during Reagan...

Yeah, and-?

 

[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.

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

It started during Reagan...

Yeah, and-?

Don't get the hershey squirts over it..

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

It started during Reagan...

Yeah, and-?

Don't get the hershey squirts over it..

Why was Reagan shot? So Bush could run things.

 

[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.

Unconstitutional rules that directly violate the 4th Amendment. They can "seize" a Hummer for someone having a roach in their ashtray.

It's part of Bush's "War on Drugs" and "Patriot Act" aka: Expand the government.

It started during Reagan...

Yeah, and-?

Don't get the hershey squirts over it..

Why was Reagan shot? So Bush could run things.

It was a staged play since Reagan was an actor...

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

See Bennis v. Michigan.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

See Bennis v. Michigan.

Not even relevant to the conversation, but thanks for playing there far left drone!

 

[Kosh]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

And you want me to prove a negative..

Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.

Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.

And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.

At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.

And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

See Bennis v. Michigan.

Not even relevant to the conversation, but thanks for playing there far left drone!

And you have provided what that was relevant? All I have seen is that same tired "You're a leftist!" bullshit.

Like the comment "The IRS takes money and you are fine with that". As a matter of fact I am NOT fine with what the IRS does, and I have spoken out against it numerous times. I have also campaigned for tax reforms in the real world. Not just snide remarks and baseless accusations on an internet forum.

What, exactly, is leftist about not agreeing with law enforcement being able to seize assets without proof any crime has been committed or was going to be committed? How is that a Left/Right issue? That is wholely unAmerican.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

See Bennis v. Michigan.

Not even relevant to the conversation, but thanks for playing there far left drone!

And you have provided what that was relevant? All I have seen is that same tired "You're a leftist!" bullshit.

Like the comment "The IRS takes money and you are fine with that". As a matter of fact I am NOT fine with what the IRS does, and I have spoken out against it numerous times. I have also campaigned for tax reforms in the real world. Not just snide remarks and baseless accusations on an internet forum.

What, exactly, is leftist about not agreeing with law enforcement being able to seize assets without proof any crime has been committed or was going to be committed? How is that a Left/Right issue? That is wholely unAmerican.

See how many times you changed your stance there far left drone?

See how using such a biased piece of far left trash taints any point you wanted to make?

Show where the DEA/law enforcement can just seized money, cause it can. That was your point and that has yet to be proven. Prove that first and then you may have some valid point to your overly biased far left hit piece.

If it is un-American, then no one in their right mind should support the government taking anyone's fair share on any level.