Court: Illegally obtained evidence doesn’t bar asset seizures

[Disir]

Law enforcement can seize private property that was used in the commission of a crime, even if evidence of wrongdoing was illegally obtained by police, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Because the process of seizing property takes place in civil court, property owners aren’t protected by criminal court rules that call for evidence to be tossed out if it was obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure, the unanimous court ruling said.

The ruling resolves a lingering legal question — whether the process known as civil-asset forfeiture is governed by the “exclusionary rule,” which can require criminal courts to throw out evidence for lack of a search warrant or other defect.

“We hold definitively that it is not. Under our holding, trial courts — and this court — considering civil-forfeiture proceedings in the future will not need” to determine that evidence was seized in a constitutionally protected way, Justice Jeffrey Brown wrote for the court.
Court: Illegally obtained evidence doesn’t bar asset seizures

You can read the ruling in the intext link.

 

[Care4all]

That doesn't seem just...

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's Government helping itself to our belongings, regardless of how they helped themselves. Possession is nine/tenths of the law.

 

[waltky]

Deal marijuana an' ya liable to lose yer house...

Justice Department seizes over 100 homes in crackdown on marijuana operation
April 4, 2018 • WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. law enforcement agencies seized over 100 homes in the Sacramento, California-area this week in what the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday said was part of a sweeping crackdown on a criminal marijuana growing operation funded by China-based criminal groups.

In a two-day sweep that started on Tuesday, the Justice Department said hundreds of federal agents and local police executed search warrants at about 74 homes and two business offices believed to be used for marijuana-growing operations. At the same time, the Justice Department filed civil forfeiture actions against 100 homes, a legal action allowing the government to confiscate assets if there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made cracking down on illegal drugs one of his priorities since taking over the helm of the Justice Department last year. Sessions, who has made no secret of his disdain for marijuana, in January ended an Obama-era policy that called on prosecutors not to prioritize bringing federal marijuana cases in states where it is legal.

The U.S. Department of Justice building is seen in Washington​

In addition to seizing the homes, the government also seized 61,050 marijuana plants, more than 440 pounds (200 kg) of processed marijuana and 15 firearms. The policy change came shortly after California formally launched the world's largest regulated market for recreational pot. The operation announced on Wednesday, however, relates to underground illegal marijuana-growing operations, and not those following California's stringent regulatory and licensing regime. Federal law enforcement officials said in a statement that the criminal organization targeted through the home seizures used foreign funds to purchase the homes in order to use them for growing marijuana.

Down payments on the properties were financed by wire transfers from the province of Fujian, China, and the pot that was grown in the homes was later distributed outside California to other parts of the United States, the statement said. The Justice Department said the operation represented one of the largest-ever residential forfeiture efforts in U.S. criminal history. In addition to seizing the homes, the government also seized 61,050 marijuana plants, more than 440 pounds (200 kg) of processed marijuana and 15 firearms.

Justice Department seizes over 100 homes in crackdown on marijuana operation

 

[WinterBorn]

Law enforcement can seize private property that was used in the commission of a crime, even if evidence of wrongdoing was illegally obtained by police, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Because the process of seizing property takes place in civil court, property owners aren’t protected by criminal court rules that call for evidence to be tossed out if it was obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure, the unanimous court ruling said.

The ruling resolves a lingering legal question — whether the process known as civil-asset forfeiture is governed by the “exclusionary rule,” which can require criminal courts to throw out evidence for lack of a search warrant or other defect.

“We hold definitively that it is not. Under our holding, trial courts — and this court — considering civil-forfeiture proceedings in the future will not need” to determine that evidence was seized in a constitutionally protected way, Justice Jeffrey Brown wrote for the court.
Court: Illegally obtained evidence doesn’t bar asset seizures

You can read the ruling in the intext link.

Since they don't even have to charge you, why would evidence be an issue. Hell, there is not even the assumption of innocence. If the gov't seizes your assets, you have to prove your innocence.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's Government helping itself to our belongings, regardless of how they helped themselves. .

The "Rule of Law" Is the Rule of Lawyers

I don't include criminals in my "our." They are enemies of the human race and I don't care what methods were used to convict them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Law enforcement can seize private property that was used in the commission of a crime, even if evidence of wrongdoing was illegally obtained by police, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Because the process of seizing property takes place in civil court, property owners aren’t protected by criminal court rules that call for evidence to be tossed out if it was obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure, the unanimous court ruling said.

The ruling resolves a lingering legal question — whether the process known as civil-asset forfeiture is governed by the “exclusionary rule,” which can require criminal courts to throw out evidence for lack of a search warrant or other defect.

“We hold definitively that it is not. Under our holding, trial courts — and this court — considering civil-forfeiture proceedings in the future will not need” to determine that evidence was seized in a constitutionally protected way, Justice Jeffrey Brown wrote for the court.
Court: Illegally obtained evidence doesn’t bar asset seizures

You can read the ruling in the intext link.

Since they don't even have to charge you, why would evidence be an issue. Hell, there is not even the assumption of innocence. If the gov't seizes your assets, you have to prove your innocence.

A presumption of innocence and due process concerns solely individuals charged with a crime – private property is entitled to neither.

A defendant is charged with a crime, tried, and found not guilty because the evidence proving his guilt was thrown out by the trial judge; the defendant still committed the crime, and the property used to facilitate that crime is seized accordingly.

 

[JoeMoma]

Law enforcement can seize private property that was used in the commission of a crime, even if evidence of wrongdoing was illegally obtained by police, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Because the process of seizing property takes place in civil court, property owners aren’t protected by criminal court rules that call for evidence to be tossed out if it was obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure, the unanimous court ruling said.

The ruling resolves a lingering legal question — whether the process known as civil-asset forfeiture is governed by the “exclusionary rule,” which can require criminal courts to throw out evidence for lack of a search warrant or other defect.

“We hold definitively that it is not. Under our holding, trial courts — and this court — considering civil-forfeiture proceedings in the future will not need” to determine that evidence was seized in a constitutionally protected way, Justice Jeffrey Brown wrote for the court.
Court: Illegally obtained evidence doesn’t bar asset seizures

You can read the ruling in the intext link.

Since they don't even have to charge you, why would evidence be an issue. Hell, there is not even the assumption of innocence. If the gov't seizes your assets, you have to prove your innocence.

A presumption of innocence and due process concerns solely individuals charged with a crime – private property is entitled to neither.

A defendant is charged with a crime, tried, and found not guilty because the evidence proving his guilt was thrown out by the trial judge; the defendant still committed the crime, and the property used to facilitate that crime is seized accordingly.

Seems to fly in the face of the right to own property.