How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

[danielpalos]

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.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

 

[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.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

How ?

Easy.....

All that's required for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Good luck with that.
Guess you haven't been paying attention to that little nuisance called "Reality"

The ONLY thing that guarantees ANYONE Constitutional rights is their will to defeat those who work to take those rights away by any means necessary

 

[toobfreak]

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.

This is one of the most heinous laws ever passed in the USA that must be repealed, originally claimed to be so that they could confiscate all of the goods that drug dealers bought with ill-gotten money they made off of drug sales, you know: Yachts, expensive luxury cars, planes, big homes, but it has gone far from that to where now the DEA confiscated a farm off of an old lady (her only place to live and all she opened) because her nephew living there was found growing a pot plant way out in the corner of the field. They reason that property has no rights, so they can just take it and the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it innocent----- always at high cost and taking years in the meantime. It is absolute insanity. It is YOUR government.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

This is one of the most heinous laws ever passed in the USA that must be repealed, originally claimed to be so that they could confiscate all of the goods that drug dealers bought with ill-gotten money they made off of drug sales, you know: Yachts, expensive luxury cars, planes, big homes, but it has gone far from that to where now the DEA confiscated a farm off of an old lady (her only place to live and all she opened) because her nephew living there was found growing a pot plant way out in the corner of the field. They reason that property has no rights, so they can just take it and the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it innocent----- always at high cost and taking years in the meantime. It is absolute insanity. It is YOUR government.

Americans (unlike Egyptians), have shown time and time again that the Powers That Be can do just about ANYTHING and Americans will just quietly go along...obedient, docile sheep......only mumbling on forums with discontent.

That means they will definitely do more things like it, Constitution be damned.

All that is required for evil men to prevail is for good men to act like GD sheep.

 

[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.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Thank goodness for incorporation doctrine.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Due Process.

 

[WinterBorn]

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Due Process.

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

 

[danielpalos]

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Due Process.

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

 

[WinterBorn]

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Due Process.

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

 

[danielpalos]

We have to quibble. Our federal Constitution secures Due Process.

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Due Process.

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, we don't have to quibble. The US Constitution guarantees us certain rights. These predate most state constitutions and applies to the ENTIRE nation, as opposed to a single state. The Wyoming constitution does not guarantee the individual rights of the people in Ohio. The US Constitution guarantees it to all citizens. Simply because a state constitution happens to do it to does not supersede or change that.

Due Process.

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

 

[danielpalos]

Due Process.

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

 

[WinterBorn]

You keep saying that like it explains something. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overruled by any state constitution.

What "due process" makes a state's constitution our only source of individual rights, while the US Constitution does not? Answer that straight, you little retread. For once, just answer the fuckin question or give up using the phrase as any kind of reason.

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

 

[danielpalos]

we have a federal form of Government. Everything is Not a federal case.

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

 

[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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Interesting point. Our drug war is public policy. There is no longer any federal power to Prohibit since the repeal of that amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Public policy Constitutes, an Public Use.

The general government of the Union, has no police power in the several and sovereign and free States.