|
Post by abbey1227 on May 12, 2024 13:43:51 GMT
I'm not sure why you keep talking about "ThE RiGhT", I don't give a fuck about the right (or left). And I'm not sure why you're defending the practice of using bogus traffic stops to seize and sell property. It's just interesting that you're all for it because Rightist judges approve it.
Maybe just think of it as the Govt's way of getting people to pay 'their fair share'?
I'm told that's an easy way to tolerate such methodology.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on May 12, 2024 13:46:24 GMT
Yeah it's a problem. The original Idea had good intentions but it's being abused. Personal story time. Non-Lawyer Uncle closed a deal with local businessmen famous for being eccentric in SC. The guy buying was an old timer dealt but nothing in cash. Old Timey Business dudes can get squirrely in the Coastal Area of SC. So He wanted to do the deal in cash over the span of 5 trips. The old guy had literal caches of cash he had to go get to pay my Uncle off. This was in the early 00's. So my Uncle was traveling down Hwy 17 doing about 8 miles over the speed limit with around 85,000 in a manila envelope in the back of his SUV. (it's surprising how little room that takes up) Gets pulled over for speeding. About the 4th question was is there any large amount of money in the car? Uncle being honest said yeah and explained the shit he has had to do to close out a land deal. The cop seizes the 85k. On the report the fact that he had 85k in the car was probable cause enough to seize it. Uncle is pissed. Calls Lawyer Uncle. He gets on it. 10 Months later even having it discounted because his Brother helped him out and got his friends to do work for him it cost my Uncle around 11k to get back his 85k. (Lawyer Fees, Expenses, Court Cost, etc) That's not even taken into account present value of cash vs future value of cash. Or what he could've done with the 85k in those 10 months. He was never charged. Never arrested. IF I'm not mistaken it was either the Car that Was Charged for the Seizure or the Actual Money was Charged for justification of it being seized. Civil Forfeiture is like an ATM for police departments small to federal. They are banking that either A you aren't going to fight if it takes more time and money to get the things seized back. Or B in the interval of seizing vs the eventual relinquishing of the property they can use it to sure up their budgets and will in the mean time seize more money. With future seized money both legitimate and not they can pay back the individuals who fight and win.
The Govt needs to be fed...........either by hook or by crook.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 12, 2024 14:05:06 GMT
Why do you want criminals to keep goods they've stolen or used to commit a crime? The case doesn't involve goods implicated in crime. From the article: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) made a critical distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. It’s one thing if the property involved is the subject of crime...Civil forfeiture, however, requires no crime." Even when civil forfeiture can be justified, abuses can be checked. SCOTUS passed on the chance to do so. Do you have any examples these (widespread) abuses? Cops "robbing" people for shits and giggles and using this practice as a "personal ATM"? The OP is an anti-cop jerkoff. He has no objectivity whatsoever and is presenting this a Republican-made issue. It is not. It's a practice that has existed longer than we've been alive and provides absolutely no examples of this being a big problem.
|
|
|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on May 12, 2024 14:14:45 GMT
I have no problem with them confiscating a 120k Escalade used in a drive-by that kills innocent people....
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on May 12, 2024 14:19:00 GMT
Civil forfeiture has been around since the 1600s and applies to items suspected to have been used in a crime. Why do you want criminals to keep goods they've stolen or used to commit a crime? You do understand that the case was about whether the seizure could take place without a preliminary hearing, right?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 12, 2024 14:19:54 GMT
The case doesn't involve goods implicated in crime. From the article: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) made a critical distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. It’s one thing if the property involved is the subject of crime...Civil forfeiture, however, requires no crime." Even when civil forfeiture can be justified, abuses can be checked. SCOTUS passed on the chance to do so. Do you have any examples these (widespread) abuses? The case before SCOTUS presented two such examples. The cars confiscated were owned by people other than the people in trouble. If SCOTUS won't say that crosses a line, then it might as well say that nothing does.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 12, 2024 14:26:02 GMT
Do you have any examples these (widespread) abuses? The case before SCOTUS presented two such examples. The cars confiscated were owned by people other than the people in trouble. If SCOTUS won't say that crosses a line, then it might as well say that nothing does. The car that's evidence in a criminal case? That doesn't fall under "stealing".
|
|
|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on May 12, 2024 14:28:10 GMT
Civil forfeiture has been around since the 1600s and applies to items suspected to have been used in a crime. Why do you want criminals to keep goods they've stolen or used to commit a crime? You do understand that the case was about whether the seizure could take place without a preliminary hearing, right? Doesn't the IRS already have the ability to seize your property without due process if you owe back taxes?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 12, 2024 14:28:34 GMT
Civil forfeiture has been around since the 1600s and applies to items suspected to have been used in a crime. Why do you want criminals to keep goods they've stolen or used to commit a crime? You do understand that the case was about whether the seizure could take place without a preliminary hearing, right? The hearings are pending. One of the examples involves a car that was seized because a woman's son (I believe) was found with drugs in her car. Of course cops are going to take it, it's fucking evidence.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 12, 2024 14:51:51 GMT
Civil forfeiture has been around since the 1600s and applies to items suspected to have been used in a crime. Why do you want criminals to keep goods they've stolen or used to commit a crime? How about you read the article and realize that there don't even need to be charges, much less a conviction, to keep the stuff they take? Also, many cops target cars with out of state plates because they know their victim likely can't afford to stick around to fight it and will just leave the state without their property. There are cases where cops have literally made people hand over their wedding rings.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 12, 2024 14:55:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 12, 2024 14:57:51 GMT
"How about you learn your history? This has been a thing for years. The current Supreme Court did not invent this, they voted to keep the status quo."So it's ok for the government to take your property and keep it even when you've never been charged, tried, or convicted for a crime. It's just the "status quo". Is the government just taking people's things for fun? Often, yes. There have been many exposes in recent years of police departments that are notorious for just taking people's shit without any proof of wrongdoing, including seizing cars, cash, jewelry, etc. I remember one Texas town was taking so much stuff that they were having a hard time spending the money because the law only allows them to spend the seized money on certain things, so they were throwing town barbecues and shit.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 12, 2024 15:01:09 GMT
Wouldn't having your property seized despite not having committed any crime make you a "victim"? Everyone's a victim. We can't solve problems by ignoring atrocities committed by criminals just because someone is aiding and abetting our own local "terrorist gangs". No, the cops aren't picking on innocent people. Detectives are clueless, but the cop on the street knows exactly who the local terrorists are, and knows where they get help. A lot of people are bullied by the thugs into helping, and lose property being confiscated. That's terrible, but it's stupidity and cowardice to blame it on the cops, when it's actually the thugs who are responsible. The property has to be taken away for the safety of everyone, including any innocent person who loses the property, because the local terrorists already have laid claim to that property anyway. Tenaha, Texas asset forfeiture controversy en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas_asset_forfeiture_controversy
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on May 12, 2024 15:27:08 GMT
You do understand that the case was about whether the seizure could take place without a preliminary hearing, right? The hearings are pending. One of the examples involves a car that was seized because a woman's son (I believe) was found with drugs in her car. Of course cops are going to take it, it's fucking evidence. This is about Civil Forfeiture, not evidence holds. You can’t use one to justify the other.
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on May 12, 2024 15:28:40 GMT
You do understand that the case was about whether the seizure could take place without a preliminary hearing, right? Doesn't the IRS already have the ability to seize your property without due process if you owe back taxes? The crux issue here relates to procedural due process and a preliminary hearing.
|
|