-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Asset seizure without warrants.....it's back!
- Thread starter araomd
- Start date
biggest gang in america
Yeah because he's never used the govt to try and take what he wants...
Well what else are you supposed to do when you can't seem to write enough revenue generation slips?
Paywalled.
This is just one of the many,many things the two have in common ideologically
QUOTE from ARTICLE: "Asset forfeiture is a contentious practice that lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted — and in many cases,never charged — with wrongdoing. Recent reports have found that the use of the practice has exploded in recent years, prompting concern that, in some cases, police are motivated more by profit and less by justice.
The Justice Department's equitable sharing program allowed state and local authorities to pursue asset forfeiture under federal, rather than state law. Federal forfeiture policies are more permissive than many state policies, allowing police to keep up to 80 percent of assets they seize."
I agree. The agency involved should not be allowed to directly profit from their non-criminal, flimsy-evidence asset forfeitures.
Two reforms are needed:
(1) No asset forfeiture without either (A) a criminal conviction for the underlying crime and a finding (or stipulation) that the assets in question were obtained by, or earmarked for, the crimes for which the person was convicted, or (B) a full evidentiary hearing is held before a neutral and detached magistrate where any person claiming an interest in the property can fight the confiscation of it, and such persons who cannot afford an attorney will have one court-appointed at no charge. The government bears the burden of both producing evidence and persuading the judge by "clear and convincing evidence" that the property was involved in furthering the specified criminal activity.
(2) When assets are forfeited, it goes into the general treasury. Use some of it for roads, some for schools, some for public safety (not just cops, but fire and EMS, too), etc.
The Justice Department's equitable sharing program allowed state and local authorities to pursue asset forfeiture under federal, rather than state law. Federal forfeiture policies are more permissive than many state policies, allowing police to keep up to 80 percent of assets they seize."
I agree. The agency involved should not be allowed to directly profit from their non-criminal, flimsy-evidence asset forfeitures.
Two reforms are needed:
(1) No asset forfeiture without either (A) a criminal conviction for the underlying crime and a finding (or stipulation) that the assets in question were obtained by, or earmarked for, the crimes for which the person was convicted, or (B) a full evidentiary hearing is held before a neutral and detached magistrate where any person claiming an interest in the property can fight the confiscation of it, and such persons who cannot afford an attorney will have one court-appointed at no charge. The government bears the burden of both producing evidence and persuading the judge by "clear and convincing evidence" that the property was involved in furthering the specified criminal activity.
(2) When assets are forfeited, it goes into the general treasury. Use some of it for roads, some for schools, some for public safety (not just cops, but fire and EMS, too), etc.
