patrick.net

After Trump uses it to declaw Soros

Patrick says

as part of so-called "Patriot" Act

Just to be clear, the War on Us is mainly to blame for the rise of civil forfeiture. Patrick does link to it, but doesn't mention it directly.

Yes, good point, that the War on Drugs has a lot of the blame, will add that above.

This is a concept I was not too familiar with and almost can't believe.

The seizing agency keeps the seized property for THEIR OWN agency?? Seriously?

Patrick says

How they rationalize their abuse:

They claim to be stealing money and property only from "bad guys".

If they really are seizing money and property from criminals, then we should all support it.
Criminals have money and property stolen from someone else. Lets take it all.

BayArea says

This is a concept I was not too familiar with and almost can't believe.

The seizing agency keeps the seized property for THEIR OWN agency?? Seriously?

I had a sizeable amount of currency seized from me by local police back in 2000. In 2011, I received notification that the state was ready for their day in court over who deserves to keep said currency. I had to contact a lawyer to figure out what to do about it, and when this particular lawyer told me his fee for handling the case, I figured I'd rather leave the State have it then let a lawyer get his hands on it.

The letter I was served said I had thirty days to respond, and on the 29th day, a friend overheard me telling the story to her BIL. She said she was dating a lawyer and she could see if he would help me out.

He offered to put in a little work on a contingency basis so we went for it. The State, having never charged me of ANY crimes in relation to the seizure, called him with a counter offer. A 50/50 split . I didn't like the idea, but anything I got back at that point was found money. So we accepted.

To my surprise, they returned the same old currency they had confiscated, which looked like it was from a different country, and reeked of drugs (presumably from being stored in evidence).

I feel for any poor soul that is subjected to such anti American abuse of power, it is horrific. For many, the arm of The State that is there to Protect and Serve, is the only terrorist organization they will ever know. Scary shit

BayArea says

This is a concept I was not too familiar with and almost can't believe.

The seizing agency keeps the seized property for THEIR OWN agency?? Seriously?

Yes, it's pretty horrifying.

Men with guns take money from you and keep it. You can't call the police, because they are the police.

Without you being charged with anything at all.

Don't forget the part where they ransack your family home. Fortunately, i was in the process of moving already, but none of us wanted to live there anymore after that .

The socially conservative leftist imbecilles sitting on multiple California city councils including Oakland and Los Angeles tried this for pretty low level crimes...prostitution, street racing, etc...and got shut down by the California Supreme Court. What was most ridiculous was that the forfeitures could happen simply if the police had reasonable suspicion you had committed a crime. No arrest was necessary and your car could still be taken. Then to get it back you had to attend a civil hearing in criminal court where the prosecutions burden was only preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

I get why the asset forfeiture laws exist at the Federal level for drug enforcement, but it's a part of law just very ripe for government abuse and a really good argument as to why drugs should just be decriminalized all together.

Tenpoundbass says

After Trump uses it to declaw Soros

Either you are for or against civil forfeiture. Choose. Since you are probably toking on a doobie right now choose wisely.

Strategist says

If they really are seizing money and property from criminals, then we should all support it.

You don't know shit about civil forfeitures do you? They are seizing money and property from people no matter who they are. No crime needs to be proven ever. No intent needs to be proven ever. No reason need be given ever. You have to prove in court at your expense that your money and property weren't part of a crime. The people who seize the property and money get to keep the property and money if you can't afford to go to court. What could possibly go wrong? After all everyone knows all police and law agencies are totally honest and incorruptible.

I would have no problems with civil forfeitures if:
1. Money and property were put in escrow.
2. Police needed to prove money and property were part of a crime. At no cost to the person who's money and property were seized.
3. Money and property actually proven to be part of a crime went to a central fund, not to the agency that seized it.