"Proponents of civil asset forfeiture argue that while sometimes a conviction of an individual isn't attained"

That's why it's called "civil" asset forfeiture. If a conviction is attained it's called criminal asset forfeiture.

That's why it's called "civil" asset forfeiture. If a conviction is attained it's called criminal asset forfeiture.

It's not even "civil" asset forfeiture as no civil court case is required to seize.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the 4th Amendment than "civil asset forfeiture".

That's why it's called "civil" asset forfeiture. If a conviction is attained it's called criminal asset forfeiture.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual or a guilty verdict.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty".

Eavenson brought up to Trump an unnamed senator who was discussing introducing legislation that would require a conviction before law enforcement could seize forfeiture money, joking that "the cartel would build a monument" to the senator in Mexico for passing said legislation.

Trump is an idiot. The Senator is looking to reform the process by REQUIRING A CONVICTION - not eliminate it.

It's not even "civil" asset forfeiture as no civil court case is required to seize.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the 4th Amendment than "civil asset forfeiture".

I agree with you on this. Civil asset forfeiture without either criminal conviction or a final judgment of civil liability is completely unjust.

I would like to say it is "unconstitutional", but the Constitution is what the Supreme Court SAYS it is, and the Supreme Court has said that civil asset forfeiture is constitutional, so it is.

So is abortion, and shutting down bakers who won't bake gay wedding cakes - all of those things are also constitutional. The law is an ass.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the 4th Amendment than "civil asset forfeiture".

I'm with ya on that one. After all,what kind of crime did your property commit?

Now,if you are convicted of robbing a bank,for example,and there is a bag full of 100 dollar bills found in your closet still banded with the banks name,it ain't yours so you have no right to it. We used to understand a concept in this country called "commit the crime and THEN be punished for it."

We used to understand a concept in this country called "commit the crime and THEN be punished for it."

Used to.

It's frustrating.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual or a guilty verdict.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime suspected of being contraband or the fruit of a crime, os used to facilitate a crime, without charging the individual or a guilty verdict.

There, corrected it. If you have contraband or swag from a crime or property used in a crime, you do not lawfully possess it.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-18/part-i/chapter-46/sec.-981/

18 U.S.C. § 981 (2014)

§981. Civil forfeiture

(a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:

(A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property.

(B) Any property, real or personal, within the jurisdiction of the United States, constituting, derived from, or traceable to, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from an offense against a foreign nation, or any property used to facilitate such an offense, if the offense—

(i) involves trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons technology or material, or the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as that term is defined for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act), or any other conduct described in section 1956(c)(7)(B);

(ii) would be punishable within the jurisdiction of the foreign nation by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; and

(iii) would be punishable under the laws of the United States by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, if the act or activity constituting the offense had occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States.

[snip]

The asset forfeiture proceeding is a civil proceeding against the asset, not a person. Thus, no arrest of a person or conviction of a person is necessary. No person need by identified as the owner.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual or a guilty verdict.

The problem is, desire to line their pockets easily becomes confused with suspicion. When it does, the result is self licensed theft.

" I can't think of a more blatant violation of the 4th Amendment than "civil asset forfeiture". "

Could not agree more !!!

It should be abolished !!!

"Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual or a guilty verdict."

Not quite.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take temporarily seize cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual with a crime or a guilty verdict of a crime.

In a civil court of law, the owner has the opportunity to demonstrate that the cash and property were acquired legally. He, personally, is never at risk of losing his freedom.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take temporarily seize cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual with a crime or a guilty verdict of a crime.

That is a contradiction of innocent until proven guilty.

"It's not even "civil" asset forfeiture as no civil court case is required to seize."

True. But then again, no criminal court is required to arrest someone.

The courts come later in both cases.

"That is a contradiction of innocent until proven guilty."

If someone is arrested and held in jail for committing a crime, isn't that also a contradiction of innocent until proven guilty?

In a civil court of law, the owner has the opportunity to demonstrate that the cash and property were acquired legally. He, personally, is never at risk of losing his freedom.

With asset forfeiture, it is the owner who must burden the filing of the case as plaintiff, and the owner on whom the burden of proof rests. But of course it is not always possible to prove something you rightfully own or possess was acquired legally. And then it's questionable whether the legal expenses of proving this is recoverable from the state.

He, personally, is never at risk of losing his freedom.

A patently stupid statement. If I take any personal property that rightly belongs to you, you have **personally lost freedom**. Jail time is not required to "personally" lose freedom. But it's clear "freedom" is not a term you understand.

True. But then again, no criminal court is required to arrest someone.

The courts come later in both cases.

True, but then if a person arrested turned out to be innocent of the alleged offense, he can potentially collect a settlement as compensation for the loss of freedom he wrongly endured.

"True, but then if a person arrested turned out to be innocent of the alleged offense, he can potentially collect a settlement as compensation for the loss of freedom he wrongly endured."

True, but there you're talking about a citizen, not an inert pile of money or an expensive car.

But if the owner is successful in showing the asset was acquired legally, under federal civil asset forfeiture laws he is entitled to legal fees and interest on the money.

In the rare instance that happens.

"But of course it is not always possible to prove something you rightfully own or possess was acquired legally."

You act as though the government is going door-to-door, seizing everything you can't prove you acquired legally.

"If I take any personal property that rightly belongs to you, you have **personally lost freedom**."

No. I lost my property. Big difference between that and being incarcerated.

"If I take any personal property that rightly belongs to you, you have **personally lost freedom**."

No. I lost my property. Big difference between that and being incarcerated.

We're talking about freedom. If I take everything you own, you have lost freedom.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Study it. I won't take more time to educate you on the obvious.

If I take everything you own, you have lost freedom.

"We're talking about freedom. If I take everything you own, you have lost freedom."

If that property was acquired illegally, I haven't "lost" anything. I should be thanking God that the government didn't have enough evidence to also convict me of the crime and send me to prison.

"I'd be surprised if your IQ score contained as many as 2 digits."

Whatever it is, it's obviously higher than yours.