And that's the rub, and how the departments that do it get away with it. You've got a few hundred dollars on you, let's call it $1000, maybe legitimately because you're on vacation and wanted cash (I've been known to do that myself, usually closer to $300-$500 though). You're stopped 500 miles away from home on your vacation. That money is seized, but you're eventually released. They don't give you the money back.cb1000rider wrote:It's a "burden" thing. I'll provide an example:Dave2 wrote: Speaking of which I'm kinda curious about the legal justification for it working any other way... I mean if the government's premise is that they can seize the assets of criminals because <reasons>, they can't continue to use the same justifications once they've failed to prove you're a criminal. Wouldn't laws that state otherwise be a violation of the 4th amendment?
I own an easement to the lake. My neighbor, who owns the property, gated and locked the easement so I couldn't use it any longer. I consulted an attorney. I was given two pieces of advice:
1) I could fund the lawsuit and the eventual goal would be an injunction of some type against blocking the easement and if I was lucky, maybe cover my legal fees.
2) I could go out there and cut the lock off the gate. If the neighbor wanted to sue me for cutting the lock, he could.
In the civil forfeiture case, because the city/state/county has the property, they really aren't under any obligation to release it. The only "arm twist" that is available is the court system and that costs money. Often a lot of money.
Do you hire a lawyer at $200-$500 an hour, or just write it off to experience. Those departments that do this know what's typically going to happen.
It's a good law.