7
7
0
Your thoughts on this my fellow RP'ers?
My two cents are as follows- police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it's been banned just because they "suspect" a person is doing something illegal. I have read reports/articles on this in a few states, but on a federal level this is disturbing.
My two cents are as follows- police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it's been banned just because they "suspect" a person is doing something illegal. I have read reports/articles on this in a few states, but on a federal level this is disturbing.
Policing for Profit - Institute for Justice
Posted from ij.org
Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Law
DOJ
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
SGT (Join to see) thanks for the solid read and share, I find the opening statement to be of much interest!
Civil forfeiture laws pose some of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today, too often making it easy and lucrative for law enforcement to take and keep property—regardless of the owner’s guilt or innocence. This updated and expanded second edition of Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture makes the case for reform, grading the civil forfeiture laws of each state and the federal government, documenting remarkable growth in forfeiture activity across the country, and highlighting a worrisome lack of transparency surrounding forfeiture activity and expenditures from forfeiture funds.
TSgt Joe C. SFC William Farrell PO1 William "Chip" Nagel LTC Stephen F.] SGT Robert George SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas Maj Marty Hogan SGT (Join to see) SFC Dave Beran SGT Philip Roncari SP5 Michael Rathbun CW5 (Join to see) SPC Margaret Higgins SGT Michael Thorin MSgt Jason McClish COL Mikel J. Burroughs ] SrA Christopher Wright SFC George Smith Cynthia Croft
Civil forfeiture laws pose some of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today, too often making it easy and lucrative for law enforcement to take and keep property—regardless of the owner’s guilt or innocence. This updated and expanded second edition of Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture makes the case for reform, grading the civil forfeiture laws of each state and the federal government, documenting remarkable growth in forfeiture activity across the country, and highlighting a worrisome lack of transparency surrounding forfeiture activity and expenditures from forfeiture funds.
TSgt Joe C. SFC William Farrell PO1 William "Chip" Nagel LTC Stephen F.] SGT Robert George SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas Maj Marty Hogan SGT (Join to see) SFC Dave Beran SGT Philip Roncari SP5 Michael Rathbun CW5 (Join to see) SPC Margaret Higgins SGT Michael Thorin MSgt Jason McClish COL Mikel J. Burroughs ] SrA Christopher Wright SFC George Smith Cynthia Croft
(6)
(0)
1
1
0
As has been mentioned, this is a Constitutional violation.
As soldiers who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, it is our duty to do just that. Protect "We the People" has always been , and always will be our duty to protect both the Document and the people it is intended to protect.
Article VI, section 2, of the Constitution pretty much says that any law that is not compliant with the Constitution, is not a law to be followed.
This touches a pet peeve of mine, as soldiers, we swear the oath of enlistment to protect and preserve the Constitution. Yet not even a single class I ever had in the military taught anything about the Constitution. Geneva convention, SMLM, and other important rules regulations and treaties are taught to soldiers. But not a word about the Constitution is taught. For those who are in service, ask your fellow soldiers just how much they know about the Constitution. Be prepared to get a lot of "ums," and "ahhs". Yet we have all sworn a LEGALLY BINDING oath to protect something most know almost nothing about.
Today there are many laws, such as asset forfeiture actually violates the Constitution and our oath to protect it.
As soldiers who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, it is our duty to do just that. Protect "We the People" has always been , and always will be our duty to protect both the Document and the people it is intended to protect.
Article VI, section 2, of the Constitution pretty much says that any law that is not compliant with the Constitution, is not a law to be followed.
This touches a pet peeve of mine, as soldiers, we swear the oath of enlistment to protect and preserve the Constitution. Yet not even a single class I ever had in the military taught anything about the Constitution. Geneva convention, SMLM, and other important rules regulations and treaties are taught to soldiers. But not a word about the Constitution is taught. For those who are in service, ask your fellow soldiers just how much they know about the Constitution. Be prepared to get a lot of "ums," and "ahhs". Yet we have all sworn a LEGALLY BINDING oath to protect something most know almost nothing about.
Today there are many laws, such as asset forfeiture actually violates the Constitution and our oath to protect it.
(1)
(0)
SPC Mel White
SCOTUS Also opined that the Dred Scott case was legal and just. Just goes to show that even SCOTUS is sometimes wrong.
Anyone who believes that asset forfeiture WITHOUT a trial is Constitutional should read the fourth amendment until they can recite it forwards, backwards, and sideways in their sleep.
2 words that are important are missing. Due Process is REQUIRED for any government confiscation under the Constitution.
Anyone who believes that asset forfeiture WITHOUT a trial is Constitutional should read the fourth amendment until they can recite it forwards, backwards, and sideways in their sleep.
2 words that are important are missing. Due Process is REQUIRED for any government confiscation under the Constitution.
(0)
(0)
SPC Mel White
PO1 John Crafton this is something that ALL Service people should remember. In WWII everything that the Nazis did was "legal". Nothing they did violated any of their laws. EVERYTHING they did was, according to their laws, legal. Yet there were so many human rights violations that the trials lasted for decades and almost every last one was found guilty.
The ONLY laws concerning soldiers, in this instance, are the Constitution (first and foremost), UCMJ, and local appropriate laws.
Now according to the Constitution, Article VI, section 2 states; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The last line is extremely important, and something that EVERY single member of the military should know. Yeah, it's that important.
This is why I have a problem with the military NOT teaching these.
Hypothetical situation:
POTUS(CinC) States that because of a particular reason, ALL firearms are to be confiscated "for the safety of....whatever ". Your chain of Command follows the POTUS directives and order you to confiscate all weapons of AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Do you follow these orders or do you buck up some courage and defy them? Careful now because this is VERY dangerous grounds. It's been done before. Just look at the Civil War.
According to second amendment, the last four words are of paramount importance. "Shall not be infringed ". Infringe basically means to limit. By following orders, you would be guilty of violating the second amendment. The Constitution OVERRIDES ALL OTHER LAWS. Even the UCMJ, in this case. You would be following unlawful orders.
I am not a Constitutional authority. However I have read the Founding Fathers writings and the Constitution, several times.
My point is that a soldier MUST do what is right. There is no way around that. Everything we are taught is supposed to be towards that goal. Doing what is right for the people, and the Constitution. That's all we're really required to do. This is why I say that the military REALLY NEEDS to teach us, as soldiers, the Constitution. We swear an oath to it. It's before your officers, and the CinC for a reason. It's more important than they are. Way more important.
The ONLY laws concerning soldiers, in this instance, are the Constitution (first and foremost), UCMJ, and local appropriate laws.
Now according to the Constitution, Article VI, section 2 states; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The last line is extremely important, and something that EVERY single member of the military should know. Yeah, it's that important.
This is why I have a problem with the military NOT teaching these.
Hypothetical situation:
POTUS(CinC) States that because of a particular reason, ALL firearms are to be confiscated "for the safety of....whatever ". Your chain of Command follows the POTUS directives and order you to confiscate all weapons of AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Do you follow these orders or do you buck up some courage and defy them? Careful now because this is VERY dangerous grounds. It's been done before. Just look at the Civil War.
According to second amendment, the last four words are of paramount importance. "Shall not be infringed ". Infringe basically means to limit. By following orders, you would be guilty of violating the second amendment. The Constitution OVERRIDES ALL OTHER LAWS. Even the UCMJ, in this case. You would be following unlawful orders.
I am not a Constitutional authority. However I have read the Founding Fathers writings and the Constitution, several times.
My point is that a soldier MUST do what is right. There is no way around that. Everything we are taught is supposed to be towards that goal. Doing what is right for the people, and the Constitution. That's all we're really required to do. This is why I say that the military REALLY NEEDS to teach us, as soldiers, the Constitution. We swear an oath to it. It's before your officers, and the CinC for a reason. It's more important than they are. Way more important.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Police cannot seize property for just suspecting a crime in *any* jurisdiction in the U.S. That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment. In order to take someone's property you need a warrant signed by a judge which requires probable cause that a crime has occured and said property is evidence in that crime (or obtained via illegal means related to the crime which is still evidence of a crime--this includes illegal contraband). While it is possible in some circumstances to seize property without a warrant, a police officer still needs clear probable cause. An example of this would be a store that is just robbed at gunpoint where a white male adult wearing a blue baseball cap stole $600 in cash and an Ipad. He is seen fleeing the scene in a red Honda Civic. 20 minutes later, the police locate a red honda civic with a white male adult (with blue baseball cap) driving approximately 2 miles from the area of occurrence. The police conduct an investigative stop and the man's car is searched (enough probable cause for the search already given the area and suspect description, but lets say he consented to the search). In his car the police find $600 in cash and a brand new Ipad. This is more than enough information given the totality of the circumstances to establish probable cause he was involved in the crime and seize the Ipad and cash. Should the man be shown not to be the suspect (easily done with an in-field line-up), then the man will be released at the scene and his property returned. However the police need the ability to seize potential stolen/illegal property and evidence once probable cause has been established (and this is the only way they can). Most people who disagree with this concept in theory change their opinion very quickly when it is their stuff that is stolen.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
CW3 (Join to see) Daily Caller has a nice round up of examples as well:
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/
The 7 Most Egregious Examples Of Civil Asset Forfeiture
Cops across the country are padding their budgets with hundreds of millions of dollars by seizing property from American citizens, even when they have not been charged with a crime. This process--c
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CW4 Guy Butler - Sir, I am sure the ACLU and countless other liberal groups and publications have plenty to say on such things. Problem is, most of it is untrue or highly exaggerated. What I am saying comes from many years of direct law enforcement experience working for multiple agencies. However if you still think I am wrong and would rather believe the ACLU--Which has become one of the most anti-law enforcement organizations on the planet (or any of the publications you quoted), that is your prerogative sir. I am just stating what I know.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
Lol. Heritage, National Review, and the Daily Caller are the antithesis of liberal organizations. And while California now has a "forfeiture on conviction" law on the books, it's different elsewhere.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CW4 Guy Butler - I didn't say those were liberal publications, I only indicated that the ACLU is a liberal group and said "countless other liberal groups and publications." I will say that several commentary news publications such as the "National Review" have a tendency to take some of their libertarian views to a point where they almost look like liberal democrats. That being said, it is very easy for people to misunderstand the law in theory versus practice. And my experience in law enforcement isn't just in California despite what my profile says. Fact is, even if there were jurisdictions that have such laws allowing the police to "seize" property without proof of a crime being committed, it would be something that could easily be challenged in court as a Constitutional violation of the 4th Amendment (that's the one that gives citizen's freedom from unreasonable search and seizures unless a warrant is issued by a judge/magistrate). And I guarantee you that you won't need a high-priced ACLU lawyer backing you either. It would probably not even reach the state supreme court level because its so obvious. Even without my criminal justice background (both on-the-job and in college) I can see that. However beyond all of that, I am telling you that, in practice, this still would not happen unless there were very specific circumstances met. This is the part that I am speaking directly from experience on. I have seen assets seized many times (not just in CA, but other states, and on the federal level). However in all those instances, in all my years involved with law enforcement (over 17 years total now counting every agency I have been with), I have never seen or heard of a law enforcement officer or agency seizing anyone's property without probable cause to do it... At least not without serious repercussions (because without that it is essentially theft). Now I am not saying there is not some truth to this, nor am I saying that there are no such laws that--in their wording--allow for such things. I am just saying that no police officer I know would ever risk doing it. Further, in the two articles I have read (one by the original poster and one you posted), they suggest that this is a rampant problem, and I am telling you that it not true. In fact it is not only not true, it makes no sense despite what some so called "legal expert" may be interpreting the law as. These types of stories are exactly why police get so frustrated with many media outlets, because they push these narratives that are completely misleading.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google