This is SO Wrong...

[OlBill]

What I find most troubling, in the article, is that police department's, claim that they lost a large amount of funding, under the more restrictive regulations. The idea that a department is funded, due to crime, sends the wrong message. First, it encourages, over zealous seizures, and second, it would also open the door for selective enforcement, in that rather than try to prevent crime in the first place, it would allow small time dealers to get bigger, to acquire a larger haul.
Asset forfeiture was never designed, nor should it be used, as a budgeting tool. It should only be used, to provide things, not budgeted. And only after due process, has been met, to allow for the forfeiture in the first place. JMHO

Good post

[TEX]

These type forfeiture laws are something the Nazis would have loved. It is a law ripe for abuse - and it does get abused. It is confiscation of property without due process. If the person is convicted of a crime and the assets tie to it, then perhaps it is a viable law, but under this law as it is, no arrest, prosecution or conviction is necessary to confiscate the property. Does this sound like what the founding fathers had in mind or the sort of thing King George had in mind?

Imagine, if you will, that your place of employment transferred you to another city hundreds of miles away. You don't want to sell the house you are leaving which is worth $200K, and is paid off, because the housing market is depressed, so you decided to rent it out until the market is better. The renter decides to make meth in the garage or grow weed in the back yard - unknown to you. The police find it and guess what.........

BLAMMO - YOU LOOSE THE HOUSE

Now you can appeal this confiscation, but under present law you have to put up one third the value of the property as a sort of bond. You don't happen to have $60K laying around in cash so you can't protest or challenge it. BTW, if you did show up with $60K cash, they could just claim that was drug money and take that too.

Does that horse hockey sound like America to you?

[steveincowtown]

Theft unless convicted.

It really is that simple.

[mrvmax]

I knew people that would buy and sell antiques when I was in the Air Force in the 90's and they would routinely carry 10-20k in cash. I've carried 10k on be before and I know other people that do for one reason or another. I even have a co worker that would take 10k in cash or more to Vegas. The common theme is that all carried large amounts of cash and none of them were doing anything illegal and it would be theft to confiscate the money from any of them.

[ninjabread]

Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. IMO it's tyranny unless you can prove the funds or item was gained only from a crime. This guilt until proven innocent that is applied to property needs to go...

Tyranny, plain and simple. This is exactly the type of behavior that incites revolutions, including the one we had back in 1776. There is no excuse for this criminal behavior. None.

Robbers are robbers, even if they have stinking badges.

[thatguyoverthere]

So how did we get to this?

More importantly, how do we get back to the way it should be?

Is it even possible to correct this situation, or are we too far gone now?

[Lynyrd]

What I find most troubling, in the article, is that police department's, claim that they lost a large amount of funding, under the more restrictive regulations. The idea that a department is funded, due to crime, sends the wrong message. First, it encourages, over zealous seizures, and second, it would also open the door for selective enforcement, in that rather than try to prevent crime in the first place, it would allow small time dealers to get bigger, to acquire a larger haul.
Asset forfeiture was never designed, nor should it be used, as a budgeting tool. It should only be used, to provide things, not budgeted. And only after due process, has been met, to allow for the forfeiture in the first place. JMHO

Well said sir.

[Liberty]

So how did we get to this?

More importantly, how do we get back to the way it should be?


Is it even possible to correct this situation, or are we too far gone now?

It won't be fixed because not enough people care.
There is very little citizen concern about these travesties. Republicans want law and order and will support the police state. Democrats want control and money of all their subjects. It doesn't serve anyone's political interest to fix this.

Democrats expect government to fix everything according to their everchanging rules of political correctness.
Republicans want government to be the arbitor of all morality and all should live according to their strict code.
Libertarians are considered dangerous radicals because they believe government should be less intrusive in the citizens' lives.

[Soccerdad1995]

Democrats expect government to fix everything according to their everchanging rules of political correctness.
Republicans want government to be the arbitor of all morality and all should live according to their strict code.
Libertarians are considered dangerous radicals because they believe government should be less intrusive in the citizens' lives.

Very well put

[Darth Paul]

Democrats expect government to fix everything according to their everchanging rules of political correctness.
Republicans want government to be the arbitor of all morality and all should live according to their strict code.
Libertarians are considered dangerous radicals because they believe government should be less intrusive in the citizens' lives.

Very well put

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." - Charles Austin Beard