How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

[WinterBorn]

Absolute nonsense and another dodge.

You have tried to use "Due Process" as an explanation as to why our individual rights come from state constitutions and not the US Constitution. And yet, you have no explanation as to how or why. Throwing words out does not change anything.

Answer a simple question. It is not a trap. You are the one who thinks Due Process makes the state constitutions the source of individual rights. How so?

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

 

[danielpalos]

Because our Constitution secures civil rights.

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

 

[WinterBorn]

And? My right to free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That is an individual, civil right. It cannot be overruled by a state constitution.

As you grow up, you should learn one simple skill that will serve you well. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This spouting esoteric nonsense and pretending it means something is worthless.

In our republic there is a hierarchy of authority. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In a constitutional republic, there is one constitution that stands supreme. 50 separate constitutions do not.

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

 

[danielpalos]

We covered this concept already. That is why you seem so annoying when you do that.

The People and the militia are plural not singular. The specific language in State Constitutions, covers the Individual rights of natural born Persons.

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh jeez. That is what you base your entire argument on? That people is plural? Yes, it is plural because....are you ready? There is more than one person covered by the US Constitution.

And are you telling me that you have looked at each state's constitution and they ALL use the word "persons"? REally?

No, Daniel. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one reputable constitutional scholar who believes that the use of the word "people" means the rights are not individual rights. Stick with "she owes me my turn". That is less ridiculous.

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

 

[rightwinger]

Legalized stealing without a trial

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, our federal Constitution secures Civil Rights for the People.

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

The term is plural, not individual.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you actually claiming that the US Constitution guarantees free speech for a group of people but not for an individual?

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

The term is plural, not individual.

Plural individuals, you dolt.

 

[Syriusly]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

Do you really believe that? I mean yourself?

Real life example I remember reading about- dude was taking a bus from the Midwest to Arizona with a bag of cash- to start a new business. He was of foreign origin and that is how within his culture transactions were typically conducted.

Bus is stopped- border agents check out everyone's ID and ask him about his bag- he truthfully tells him about the cash. Border Patrol takes the cash. Gives him a receipt.

Man has to spend thousands of dollars to get his cash back- and of course lost his business opportunity.

Never charged with a crime. No one even suggested he had done anything illegal- just that having some thousands of cash on him was suspicious.

The law needs to be changed to prevent that kind of abuse.

It is legal gymnastics to pretend that taking someone's money or property without due process is not 'punitive' to the person it is taken from.

No one should have their property seized unless they have been convicted of a crime.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a literary device. If our Founding Fathers wanted us to go along with silly right wing story tellers, they would have written; Persons, instead.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

The term is plural, not individual.

Plural individuals, you dolt.

plural, not singular. you story teller.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on these forums. And that is saying something.

So what it boils down to is that every Supreme Court Justice, constitutional scholar, and federal judge since 1791 have been wrong, but you, Daniel Palos, have discovered that the entire Bill of Rights only covers the rights of groups, and not individual rights??

Wow. That is stunningly daft.

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

The term is plural, not individual.

Plural individuals, you dolt.

plural, not singular. you story teller.

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

Do you really believe that? I mean yourself?

Real life example I remember reading about- dude was taking a bus from the Midwest to Arizona with a bag of cash- to start a new business. He was of foreign origin and that is how within his culture transactions were typically conducted.

Bus is stopped- border agents check out everyone's ID and ask him about his bag- he truthfully tells him about the cash. Border Patrol takes the cash. Gives him a receipt.

Man has to spend thousands of dollars to get his cash back- and of course lost his business opportunity.

Never charged with a crime. No one even suggested he had done anything illegal- just that having some thousands of cash on him was suspicious.

The law needs to be changed to prevent that kind of abuse.

It is legal gymnastics to pretend that taking someone's money or property without due process is not 'punitive' to the person it is taken from.

No one should have their property seized unless they have been convicted of a crime.

Please don't kill the messenger.

I understand it and accept it as settled case law.

If our Constitutional Republic has any meaning, if the rule of law has any value, we must accept Supreme Court rulings as the law of the land, and Supreme Court decisions as lawful and Constitutional.

That doesn’t mean citizens are helpless concerning a given Supreme Court ruling they oppose – the political process affords the people the means by which to elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices consistent with their beliefs. And the amendment process allows citizens to void Supreme Court rulings they find repugnant, such as the 14th Amendment with regard to Dredd Scott.

It’s interesting to note that the Bennis Court majority is mostly conservative, with one liberal joining them. Dissenting were mostly moderates and liberals:

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., post, p. 453, and Ginsburg, J., post, p. 457, filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 458. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 472. ibid

 

[danielpalos]

your argument Only works if we don't have to quibble.

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

The term is plural, not individual.

Plural individuals, you dolt.

plural, not singular. you story teller.

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

The People.

 

[WinterBorn]

Whether we quibble or not, my argument works. Your argument, on the other hand, is laughably ridiculous. The entire Bill of Rights is only for groups? What blather.

Dear Daniel, the use of "people" is only because there are a lot of citizens for whom the rights are guaranteed. But then, I guess you think every ruling from the US Supreme court is judicial activism. Jeez dude, you really went off the deep end.

The term is plural, not individual.

Plural individuals, you dolt.

plural, not singular. you story teller.

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

The People.

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

 

[danielpalos]

The term is plural, not individual.

Plural individuals, you dolt.

plural, not singular. you story teller.

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

The People.

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

Plural individuals, you dolt.

plural, not singular. you story teller.

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

The People.

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

 

[Syriusly]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

Do you really believe that? I mean yourself?

Real life example I remember reading about- dude was taking a bus from the Midwest to Arizona with a bag of cash- to start a new business. He was of foreign origin and that is how within his culture transactions were typically conducted.

Bus is stopped- border agents check out everyone's ID and ask him about his bag- he truthfully tells him about the cash. Border Patrol takes the cash. Gives him a receipt.

Man has to spend thousands of dollars to get his cash back- and of course lost his business opportunity.

Never charged with a crime. No one even suggested he had done anything illegal- just that having some thousands of cash on him was suspicious.

The law needs to be changed to prevent that kind of abuse.

It is legal gymnastics to pretend that taking someone's money or property without due process is not 'punitive' to the person it is taken from.

No one should have their property seized unless they have been convicted of a crime.

Please don't kill the messenger.

I understand it and accept it as settled case law.

If our Constitutional Republic has any meaning, if the rule of law has any value, we must accept Supreme Court rulings as the law of the land, and Supreme Court decisions as lawful and Constitutional.

That doesn’t mean citizens are helpless concerning a given Supreme Court ruling they oppose – the political process affords the people the means by which to elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices consistent with their beliefs. And the amendment process allows citizens to void Supreme Court rulings they find repugnant, such as the 14th Amendment with regard to Dredd Scott.

It’s interesting to note that the Bennis Court majority is mostly conservative, with one liberal joining them. Dissenting were mostly moderates and liberals:

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., post, p. 453, and Ginsburg, J., post, p. 457, filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 458. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 472. ibid

There is no need for a constitutional amendment- while I disagree with the Supreme Court on this I recognize their authority.

But these are just laws- and legislators can change the laws- and should.

 

[Montrovant]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Asset forfeiture laws are legal and Constitutional because they concern solely the private property used in the commission of a crime, having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the property owners:

‘At bottom, petitioner's claims depend on an argument that the Michigan forfeiture statute is unfair because it relieves prosecutors from the burden of separating co-owners who are complicit in the wrongful use of property from innocent co-owners. This argument, in the abstract, has considerable appeal, as we acknowledged in Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U. S., at 510. Its force is reduced in the instant case, however, by the Michigan Supreme Court's confirmation of the trial court's remedial discretion, see supra, at 446, and petitioner's recognition that Michigan may forfeit her and her husband's car whether or not she is entitled to an offset for her interest in it, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, 9.

We conclude today, as we concluded 75 years ago, that the cases authorizing actions of the kind at issue are "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Goldsmith-Grant, supra, at 511. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.’ ibid

Asset forfeiture laws, of course, are not carte blanche for law enforcement agencies to take money or property in the complete absent of criminal wrongdoing.

But there must, at least, be wrongdoing. I understand why it is done when someone is convicted of a crime. But when they are not even charged?

Because the asset is the 'offender,' for lack a better word.

As such the forfeiture is not subject to due process, the seizure is not punitive because it's not connected to the alleged wrongdoing.

I hope you are misreading the ruling about this. By the reasoning you just described, the government can take any property, at any time, for any reason. That is what no due process boils down to.

From a brief look at Bennis, it seems to me that the court specifically stated that the forfeiture law was acceptable for property misused or wrongfully used (used in illegal acts). When such property is not misused in such a way, a person should not need to fight to have the property returned to them; the law enforcement agency which seized the property should return such property as a matter of policy.

I'm not a big fan of civil forfeiture in general, but when a person has not been charged with any crime and has their property seized, that seems like a clear violation of the fourth to me. Are you aware of any USSC rulings regarding that sort of civil forfeiture?

 

[MikeK]

I have no problem with criminals losing the money they earned committing crimes. But taking money and property from someone when no charges have even been filed? That is bullshit.

Bullshit is much too benign a term for a practice that literally amounts to government sanctioned highway robbery by agents of the state. If, back in the fifties or sixties, someone had told me this would be happening in America of the near future I would not have believed it. I wouldn't want to believe it.

Like you, I have no problem with thieves being robbed (by other thieves). But I have a big problem with robbery being facilitated via the force of Law -- regardless of the victim's character.

This practice is an unmistakable step in the direction of brazen tyranny.

 

[danielpalos]

plural, not singular. you story teller.

Are the rights listed in the Bill of Rights for only one individual? Or are they guaranteed for more than one (plural?) individuals?

The People.

The right (singular) of the people (plural). Each amendment guarantees a right for the people (citizens - each individuals).

Daniel, this is nothing more than your childish refusal to admit you are wrong. You started down this road on another thread. There is NO WAY the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee rights to groups of people but not individuals. That is simply ridiculous.

Find a new (maybe serious?) slant on things. This is dead.

The militia is also plural. The People are the Militia.

You are making connections and assumptions without any evidence.

Unless you have something new, you are just spouting nonsense over and over.

all i need is a dictionary not a story, story teller.