Anti Asset Forfeiture bill?

[android]

I saw the Trump hoopla about trying to get the sheriff fired that is behind anti forfeiture laws. As with many things, he is completely wrong.

Is there a bill proposed?

Is it going to be similar to NM HB 560 which is a pretty decent law?

[Soccerdad1995]

I saw the Trump hoopla about trying to get the sheriff fired that is behind anti forfeiture laws. As with many things, he is completely wrong.

Is there a bill proposed?

Is it going to be similar to NM HB 560 which is a pretty decent law?

Can you elaborate on why you feel President Trump is wrong on this?

I have followed the abuses in this area pretty closely, as I personally know several people who have gone through a lot of grief to get their cash back after having it seized by gun toting folks who happened to be wearing a badge (sorry, but I have a hard time calling folks who do this "law enforcement officers"). I highly doubt that one single sheriff is to blame for this, but IMHO it is not a good practice.

[RossA]

I am totally in favor of making it difficult for the government to take private property from people except under the most extraordinary circumstances.

[GeekwithaGun]

I saw the Trump hoopla about trying to get the sheriff fired that is behind anti forfeiture laws. As with many things, he is completely wrong.

Is there a bill proposed?

Is it going to be similar to NM HB 560 which is a pretty decent law?

I think you have partial information, Trump was not trying to get the sheriff fired, he joked about getting the Texas State Senator "fired" for proposing hat asset forfeiture should occur AFTER a conviction. Here is the story

http://www.klif.com/2017/02/08/trump-jo ... -eavenson/

Trump jokes with Rockwall Sheriff Harold Eavenson
Posted on February 8, 2017
President Donald J. Trump CNN photo
President Donald J. Trump
CNN photo
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WBAP/KLIF News) — President Donald Trump met with a dozen county sheriffs from across the country Tuesday, including Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County, Texas. He brought up the topic of civil assets forfeiture, which allows for the seizure of cash and property from criminal suspects.

Easonson told the president that he knew of a “state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money. I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed.”

The Washington Post reports President Trump responded jokingly, “Who’s the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career.”

Eavenson laughed but did not reveal the name of the Senator.

Asset forfeiture is a legal process by which authorities may confiscate money and property from people who are accused of crimes for which they may never be convicted.

(Copyright 2017, WBAP/KLIF News. All rights reserved.)

Filed Under: 24/7 Newsroom News, WBAP 24/7 News

[tomneal]

At first glance a couple of decades ago, Asset Forfeiture seemed like a good idea.
Now, I am older and wider, and have read about regular HONEST citizens that have been lassoed by this practice. I am against Asset Forfeiture as a 'crime fighting' tool. I'd like to see it ended in Texas and in the rest of the United States.

[tomneal]

Asset forfeiture is a legal process by which authorities may confiscate money and property from people who are accused of crimes for which they may never be convicted.

Way Too Often, they have never even been charged with a crime.

If a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich", you'd think we wouldn't even consider Asset Forfeiture without an indictment.

[GeekwithaGun]

I would be in favor of having to be convicted before being forced to forfeit any property. I think the sheriff's and other agency's like receiving the property that they can turn into cash for their agency.

[RossA]

Not only that, but they should also have to prove that the property seized was actually used in the crime. If I buy a house with my legally earned money, and later get convicted of selling marijuana, my house can be seized since I lived there, parked my car there that presumably once had marijuana in it, etc. My whole family gets punished for what I did.
NOTE: I have never sold marijuana.

[android]

I saw the Trump hoopla about trying to get the sheriff fired that is behind anti forfeiture laws. As with many things, he is completely wrong.

Is there a bill proposed?

Is it going to be similar to NM HB 560 which is a pretty decent law?

Can you elaborate on why you feel President Trump is wrong on this?

I have followed the abuses in this area pretty closely, as I personally know several people who have gone through a lot of grief to get their cash back after having it seized by gun toting folks who happened to be wearing a badge (sorry, but I have a hard time calling folks who do this "law enforcement officers"). I highly doubt that one single sheriff is to blame for this, but IMHO it is not a good practice.

Maybe I didn't write clearly enough. I am completely against forfeiture of property without a conviction and proof the property is a result of criminal profit. Cases such as State of TX vs A gold crucifix are ridiculous. (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... ay-robbery)

I think the NM law is a good example, but it falls short in prevent collusion between state and federal agencies to have the agency not covered by the law do the stealing and then share the profits.

OK, I see i got the sheriff and the state senator mixed up, but it seems to me Trump is in favor of it civil forfeiture WITHOUT a conviction. This flies in the face of the fourth amendment.

[ninjabread]

Dirtbags with guns are dirtbags with guns, even if they don't wear hoodies or sagging pants.

[Soccerdad1995]

I saw the Trump hoopla about trying to get the sheriff fired that is behind anti forfeiture laws. As with many things, he is completely wrong.

Is there a bill proposed?

Is it going to be similar to NM HB 560 which is a pretty decent law?

Can you elaborate on why you feel President Trump is wrong on this?

I have followed the abuses in this area pretty closely, as I personally know several people who have gone through a lot of grief to get their cash back after having it seized by gun toting folks who happened to be wearing a badge (sorry, but I have a hard time calling folks who do this "law enforcement officers"). I highly doubt that one single sheriff is to blame for this, but IMHO it is not a good practice.

Maybe I didn't write clearly enough. I am completely against forfeiture of property without a conviction and proof the property is a result of criminal profit. Cases such as State of TX vs A gold crucifix are ridiculous. (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... ay-robbery)

I think the NM law is a good example, but it falls short in prevent collusion between state and federal agencies to have the agency not covered by the law do the stealing and then share the profits.

OK, I see i got the sheriff and the state senator mixed up, but it seems to me Trump is in favor of it civil forfeiture WITHOUT a conviction. This flies in the face of the fourth amendment.

That makes more sense. It seems we are in violent agreement on the underlying issue.

I wouldn't worry much about this with regard to Trump. From the stories I just read, he was uninformed on the issue, and based on how the Sheriff explained it, his initial reaction was, understandably, to agree with the Sheriff. That was a one sided, biased view. Once he gets all views, and is able to actually form a final opinion, I am hopeful that he will be a lot closer to the position that you and I share on this.

[cbunt1]

Everything surrounding the concept of Civil Asset Forfeiture is the poster child for unintended consequences. Any time we are considering the addition of a new law to allow "Fill in your blanks here" we must consider how it can be used by the other side, or in the wrong hands.

It sounds like a great idea to take away the spoils of criminal activity on the surface. But the first time an innocent (legally or morally) individual is stripped of their assets, and thus their ability to defend themselves in a court of law against the accusations that got their assets seized in the first place, we have a problem.

That's before the deeper application of the CAF codes began allowing participating agencies to keep portions of what is seized. That is what's known as "Policing for profit."

And that's just the beginning of my thoughts around the idea. It's wrong, it's immoral, it's illegal, and it's unconstitutional.

Post-conviction, fines and penalties can be increased, or even specific to a situation--that's another matter entirely. But blanket Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to go the way of the Dodo.

[Deltaboy]

It needs to be ended all together . Unless your are convicted by the court.

[The Annoyed Man]

At first glance a couple of decades ago, Asset Forfeiture seemed like a good idea.
Now, I am older and wider, and have read about regular HONEST citizens that have been lassoed by this practice. I am against Asset Forfeiture as a 'crime fighting' tool. I'd like to see it ended in Texas and in the rest of the United States.

Unfortunately, I am wider too than I was back then.

[Lambda Force]

I think I have a pretty good idea what the founding fathers would think of asset forfeiture without a trial.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law