"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the U.S. Department of Justice will make it easier to engage in Civil Asset Forfeiture — a practice whereby local law enforcement agencies can seize property from those suspected of a crime, and then sell that property for a profit."
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Wasn't that the case in some cases anyway...............
Kraven posted:Wasn't that the case in some cases anyway...............
Police auctions.
Apologizing in advance for cherry picking.
From the link . . .
Several prominent Conservative, libertarian, and liberal groups oppose the practice on constitutional grounds. The concern arises under the Due Process Clauses contained within the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendmendments, which state “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
"Due Process" as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary . . .
Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life. liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing.
http://foundationfortruthinlaw...ocess-Definition.pdf
Perhaps "probable cause" satisfies the legal definition of rules regulating judicial proceedings.
budsfarm posted:Perhaps "probable cause" satisfies the legal definition of rules regulating judicial proceedings.
You forgot the most important part - "unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial ..."
As currently implemented, civil forfeiture happens before any trial, and even if one is not charged, the law enforcement agency involved is not required to return the confiscated property or reimburse the former owner.
giftedamateur posted:Kraven posted:Wasn't that the case in some cases anyway...............
Police auctions.
That's what I almost said, but I was speaking in legal terms.
I believe Eric Holder changed the rules where it took a federal official to bless the seizure first, so I guess Sessions decided to again trust local and state officials to decide things.
OldSalt posted:budsfarm posted:Perhaps "probable cause" satisfies the legal definition of rules regulating judicial proceedings.
You forgot the most important part - "unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial ..."
As currently implemented, civil forfeiture happens before any trial, and even if one is not charged, the law enforcement agency involved is not required to return the confiscated property or reimburse the former owner.
You forgot the most important part.
? You quoted my link. 
It's just that probable cause precedes all the above and is part of due process is why I said "perhaps."
Also from the link. . . .
In order to seize a person’s property in Alabama, police must meet the lower threshold of “probable cause,” rather than “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence.”
Realizing that quote is the interpretation of a biased source, be that as it may, the police do what the law permits and requires. Want a higher threshold? Then take it up with with those who make the laws. Writing an article targeting the police as if it was misconduct isn't going to rectify anything.
There's a lot of info on the web about seizure / deprive of different classifications of property from "for safe keeping" to "evidence and/or contraband" and how under different and certain circumstances one may recover their property.
Kraven posted:giftedamateur posted:Kraven posted:Wasn't that the case in some cases anyway...............
Police auctions.
That's what I almost said, but I was speaking in legal terms.
And I still say TN and AL owe me beer taken without mypermission.
I'll buy you a beer.
budsfarm posted:Kraven posted:giftedamateur posted:Kraven posted:Wasn't that the case in some cases anyway...............
Police auctions.
That's what I almost said, but I was speaking in legal terms.
And I still say TN and AL owe me beer taken without mypermission.I'll buy you a beer.
Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit.
Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate the police, the vast percent of them are simply trying to do their jobs. However a very small percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
jtdavis posted:Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate the police, the vast percent of them are simply trying to do their jobs. However a very small percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
jtdavis posted:Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate the police, the vast percent of them are simply trying to do their jobs. However a very small percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
Conflicting statements.
jtdavis posted:Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate the police, the vast percent of them are simply trying to do their jobs. However a very small percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
More from jt the cop hater.
jtdavis posted:Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate the police, the vast percent of them are simply trying to do their jobs. However a very small percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
Since most of those LEO's were in Dem controlled areas, maybe they were emulating their bosses. Or could it be their bosses chose to divert money from the training budgets for "cultural sensitivity" classes and community outreach projects for the people gunning for LEO's.
jtdavis posted:Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate the police, the vast percent of them are simply trying to do their jobs. However a very small percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
Liberals seem to have the right to loot, kill, and rob whenever they see fit. I don't hate liberals, a minuscule percent of them are simply trying to represent their political views. However a very large percent of them sure do make the good ones look bad.
Unfortunately, the police forces in Demmie controlled ruins, tend to be ill trained due to lack of funds, plus substandard recruitment.
jtdavis posted:Police seem to have the right to shoot, kill and rob whenever they see fit.
You still have the right to be a mook.
