The Forfeiture Racket

[Bill Mattocks]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

The Forfeiture Racket

Police and prosecutors won't give up their license to steal.

Radley Balko from the February 2010 issue
Around 3 in the morning on January 7, 2009, a 22-year-old college student named Anthony Smelley was pulled over on Interstate 70 in Putnam County, Indiana. He and two friends were en route from Detroit to visit Smelley’s aunt in St. Louis. Smelley, who had recently received a $50,000 settlement from a car accident, was carrying around $17,500 in cash, according to later court documents. He claims he was bringing the money to buy a new car for his aunt.
The officer who pulled him over, Lt. Dwight Simmons of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department, said that Smelley had made an unsafe lane change and was driving with an obscured license plate. When Simmons asked for a driver’s license, Smelley told him he had lost it after the accident. Simmons called in Smelley’s name and discovered that his license had actually expired. The policeman asked Smelley to come out of the car, patted him down, and discovered a large roll of cash in his front pocket, in direct contradiction to Smelley’s alleged statement in initial questioning that he wasn’t, in fact, carrying much money.
A record check indicated that Smelley had previously been arrested (though not charged) for drug possession as a teenager, so the officer called in a K-9 unit to sniff the car for drugs. According to the police report, the dog gave two indications that narcotics might be present. So Smelley and his passengers were detained and the police seized Smelley’s $17,500 cash under Indiana’s asset forfeiture law.
But a subsequent hand search of the car turned up nothing except an empty glass pipe containing no drug residue in the purse of Smelley’s girlfriend. Lacking any other evidence, police never charged anybody in the car with a drug-related crime. Yet not only did Putnam County continue to hold onto Smelley’s money, but the authorities initiated legal proceedings to confiscate it permanently.

I've talked about the crime of civil asset forfeiture before. It's outrageous. Originally designed as a tool for law enforcement - it encourages police departments to get involved in the drug war by splitting proceeds of seized assets with the departments themselves - and to hit drug dealers where it hurts; in the wallet. However, it is frequently misused, and in some cases has even led to police departments planning activities around doing searches where they believe they can confiscate high-value items and cash, regardless of whether or not any charges are ever brought.

BE AWARE - in civil asset forfeiture, you do not have to be charged with a crime, let alone convicted, to lose your property or money permanently. You must sue to get it back - and even then it is not a guarantee. Imagine that the police decide they want your house. They get a drug-sniffing dog to 'alert' on the house, get a search warrant, and EVEN IF THEY FIND NOTHING, they can begin civil asset forfeiture on your house. You lose, they win. Does it happen? Yes, it happens. Read the rest of the article. These are just a few excerpts.

Smelley’s case was no isolated incident. Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Nearly every year, according to Justice Department statistics, the federal government sets new records for asset forfeiture. And under many state laws, the situation is even worse: State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, owners of seized property all too often have a heavier burden of proof than the government officials who stole their stuff.

 

[Makalakumu]

You have to wonder, do they just hand out the money to the cops equally or are the few who run the racket the ones who rake in the money?

 

[J Ellis]

Sounds like the young man in question made some poor decisions, particularly in his interactions with the LEO. I can understand why the officer searched the vehicle and confiscated the money at first. But that still doesn't justify theft by the government. It would be another matter if he had been charged with and convicted of a crime.

Joel

 

[Archangel M]

You have to wonder, do they just hand out the money to the cops equally or are the few who run the racket the ones who rake in the money?

The money doesn't go to individuals. I don't know where you get that idea. My dept has a fund that the money goes into and its administered by the municipal gvt. My dept has limits on what they can even spend the money on. And as "easy" as these media stories make forfeiture sound, there are legal hurdles you have to jump to actually keep the stuff. We give back FAR more than we keep. What these stories leave out are how many instances this happens because the person "signs off" on the forfeiture as part of a plea or as "payment" of fines. If part of the plea is a 5K fine, many of our dopers just agree to sign off on the forfeiture of their seized property in lieu of cash.

 

[Makalakumu]

The money doesn't go to individuals. I don't know where you get that idea. My dept has a fund that the money goes into and its administered by the municipal gvt. My dept has limits on what they can even spend the money on. And as "easy" as these media stories make forfeiture sound, there are legal hurdles you have to jump to actually keep the stuff. We give back FAR more than we keep. What these stories leave out are how many instances this happens because the person "signs off" on the forfeiture as part of a plea or as "payment" of fines. If part of the plea is a 5K fine, many of our dopers just agree to sign off on the forfeiture of their seized property in lieu of cash.

It's good to get an inside opinion. I can consult the Oracle of Google and read all sorts of crazy things. Here's my question, do regular cops ever get to keep the money made from the sale of forfeited assets? Are regulations regarding these proceeds uniform or are they different depending on department?

 

[geezer]

The money doesn't go to individuals. I don't know where you get that idea. My dept has a fund that the money goes into and its administered by the municipal gvt. My dept has limits on what they can even spend the money on. And as "easy" as these media stories make forfeiture sound, there are legal hurdles you have to jump to actually keep the stuff...quote]

Which is exactly as it should be. Unfortunately there are abuses of forfeiture laws. Last year there was a widely publicized case of a small town in east Texas that was abusing such laws to essentially rob people. The town cops primarily targeted people of color, especially individuals perceived as too poor, weak or insecure to take legal action in their own defense.

Another case involved my grandfather, here in Phoenix back in the late 80's. He owed piece of property for decades that he rented to a man who operated a used car lot. Eventually, the man died or retired and another guy took over the used car business and apparently used it as a front for money laundering drug money, or something like that. To make a long story short, these guys got busted and my 80-something year-old grandfather was told that his property was forfeit under RICO laws. He would have had to spend a small fortune on legal fees to get his property back... except that he happened to know somebody. In fact he happened to be a personal friend of the Governor for many years. Amazing how things work out when you have connections. But it's still scares the poop out of me. I'm a school teacher with little money and no clout. Remember that line from Blade Runner? "If you're not a cop... you're little people."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The money doesn't go to individuals. I don't know where you get that idea. My dept has a fund that the money goes into and its administered by the municipal gvt. My dept has limits on what they can even spend the money on. And as "easy" as these media stories make forfeiture sound, there are legal hurdles you have to jump to actually keep the stuff.

That may be true for your department, but as the article notes, the 'bar has been lowered' to make seizing assets easier - there are even seminars on how to do it for police agencies. State laws enable even easier forfeiture.

The 1984 law lowered the bar for civil forfeiture. To seize property, the government had only to show probable cause to believe that it was connected to drug activity, or the same standard cops use to obtain search warrants. The state was allowed to use hearsay evidence—meaning a federal agent could testify that a drug informant told him a car or home was used in a drug transaction—but property owners were barred from using hearsay, and couldn’t even cross-examine some of the government’s witnesses. Informants, while being protected from scrutiny, were incentivized monetarily: According to the law, snitches could receive as much as one-quarter of the bounty, up to $50,000 per case.

According to a 1992 Cato Institute study examining the early results of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, total federal forfeiture revenues increased by 1,500 percent between 1985 and 1991. The Justice Department’s forfeiture fund (which doesn’t include forfeitures from customs agents) jumped from $27 million in 1985 to $644 million in 1991; by 1996 it crossed the $1 billion line, and as of 2008 assets had increased to $3.1 billion. According to the government’s own data, less than 20 percent of federal seizures involved property whose owners were ever prosecuted.

We give back FAR more than we keep.

Again, that may be true for your department, but the article points out that it is exactly the opposite for the most part.

In a 2001 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, the University of Texas at Dallas criminologist John Worral surveyed 1,400 police departments around the country on their use of forfeiture and the way they incorporated seized assets into their budgets. Worral, who describes himself as agnostic on the issue, concluded that “a substantial proportion of law enforcement agencies are dependent on civil asset forfeiture” and that “forfeiture is coming to be viewed not only as a budgetary supplement, but as a necessary source of income.” Almost half of surveyed police departments with more than 100 law enforcement personnel said forfeiture proceeds were “necessary as a budget supplement” for department operations.

What these stories leave out are how many instances this happens because the person "signs off" on the forfeiture as part of a plea or as "payment" of fines. If part of the plea is a 5K fine, many of our dopers just agree to sign off on the forfeiture of their seized property in lieu of cash.

And many innocent people, too, apparently:

More than 80 percent of federal seizures are never challenged in court, according to Smith. To supporters of forfeiture, this statistic is an indication of the owners’ guilt, but opponents argue it simply reflects the fact that in many cases the property was worth less than the legal costs of trying to get it back. Under the 1984 law, forfeiture defendants can’t be provided with a court-appointed attorney, meaning an innocent property owner without significant means would have to find a lawyer willing to take his case for free or in exchange for a portion of the property should he succeed in winning it back. And to even get a day in court, owners were forced to post a bond equal to 10 percent of the value of their seized property.

It begins to become clear that some agencies are completely into the whole notion of forfeiture, to the exclusion of actual law enforcement except as a means to raise funds.

In addition to raising questions of fairness, forfeiture has warped the priorities of law enforcement agencies. In 2008 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives asked for bids from private contractors on 2,000 Leatherman pocket knives for its agents, to be inscribed with the phrase “Always Think Forfeiture,” a play on the agency’s traditional “ATF” initials. The agency rescinded the order after it was reported in the Idaho Statesman, but critics said it betrayed the ethic of an organization more interested in taking people’s property than in fighting crime.

This is fun:

There is also a potential conflict between forfeiture and criminal prosecution. Smith says prosecutors rarely initiate civil forfeiture proceedings against someone who has been acquitted on criminal charges, although the law allows them to do so. “I think the feeling is that a jury would be very skeptical of that—that this person was acquitted in court and that to now try to take his property too is unfair,” he says. “If they don’t think a jury would be sympathetic, it isn’t worth their time to pursue it.” If a prosecutor pursues a criminal case, with its higher burden of proof, he risks losing the ability to take the suspect’s assets. If he drops the criminal case and just goes after the property with a case that is easier to prove, the suspect goes free, but the government gets to keep his stuff.

The entire article is worth a read, IMHO. But it's not the only one. There are quite a few more out there like this. This abuse has been going on for some time, and very few take notice of it. However, as the article suggests, such things get more and more out of control until the general public takes umbrage, and then they get reined in. I think we are getting close to that point. This confiscation without charging has got to stop. I have no objection to the seizing of assets where there is a trial and a conviction. Otherwise, if you can't convict, I do not believe you should be able to seize and keep the person's property.

 

[Archangel M]

Yall have to remember that there are Federal forfeiture laws and there are State forfeiture laws as well. Not to mention individual department policy on the matter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yall have to remember that there are Federal forfeiture laws and there are State forfeiture laws as well. Not to mention individual department policy on the matter.

Actually, I said that, and so does the article. Both points. Not to be rude, but did you actually bother to read it?

 

[Archangel M]

Yes. And the comments as well. Including the ones espousing killing LEO's.

Not to be rude back but forfeiture, applied correctly is a good tool. And is a fairly old concept.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/grantland01.htm

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes. And the comments as well. Including the ones espousing killing LEO's.

Certainly not something I espouse. Being a former LEO, I'm on the side of law and order, myself.

I do not see aggressive civil asset seizure and misused forfeiture laws to assist police department budget shortfalls as being conducive to law and order. I stated that I believe you when you say your department doesn't commit those abuses, but such abuses are rampant.

Not to be rude back but forfeiture, applied correctly is a good tool. And is a fairly old concept.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/grantland01.htm

It's an ancient concept, but curiously, it has almost always involved taking of property following a conviction of a crime. And I am not against that process, it's a great tool for law enforcement.

When used to fill the coffers of a depleted PD's training budget, or for oh, say 'Margarita machines' (see article), then I don't really see it as a tool for law enforcement, but more as a tool of oppression.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://tiny.cc/795lF

When Congress gave law-enforcement authorities the power to seize the property of racketeers and drug traffickers without trial, it's doubtful that they had Ethel Hylton in mind.
Hylton had flown to Houston in hopes of buying a house and escaping the winters of New York City when a drug-searching dog scratched at her luggage. Police found nothing untoward in Hylton's suitcases, but they did find $39,110 in her purse. The cash was her savings from 20 years' work as a housekeeper and the settlement of an insurance claim. She had no drugs and no criminal record. But police seized her money and-three years later-still have it, although she has not been charged with any crime.
It's unlikely that Utah legislators intended a similar law to be used against Bradshaw Bowman, an 80-year-old man whose 160-acre ranch was taken after marijuana plants were found on a remote trailside. Or that Iowa legislators were aiming a state seizure law at Dickey Kaster, whose $6,000 boat was bagged when he was caught with three illegally netted fish.

http://tiny.cc/LISMM

Thousands of ordinary Americans are being victimized each year by the federal seizure law, which was meant to curb drugs by causing financial hardship to dealers.
A 10-month study by The Pittsburgh Press shows that 80 percent of the people who lost property to the federal government were never charged with a crime. And most of the seized items weren't the luxurious playthings of drug barons, but modest homes and simple cars and hard-earned savings.
Under the government's seizure law, police can seize cash and belongings if a person fits a vague description of a drug runner, which is heavily weighted against minorities; or if a person has cash tainted by drugs, which is true of almost all U.S. currency, or if someone has property used in the commission of a crime, even if that person was not involved in the crime.

http://tiny.cc/53tF4

http://tiny.cc/I8IIG

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp announced the 23-city program last May as part of his crackdown on drug use in public housing projects. It was to use civil asset forfeiture laws to seize the leases of tenants, bypassing the normal eviction process. Such eviction actions did not require that criminal charges be filed against leaseholders.
In April, public housing tenants in Ann Arbor, Mich., were rousted from their apartments at night and evicted without hearings. Similar eviction actions were carried out in several other cities, including Richmond, where the lawsuit was filed challenging the evictions.

Remember Donald Scott? The feds busted into his house - with a warrant - looking for pot plants. He staggered out of his bedroom (some say drunk, some say drugged from a cataract surgery that day), waving a pistol in the air. He was ordered to lower the gun and complied (and both sides agreed with that). As he was lowering the gun, police opened fire and shot him to death in front of his wife. No pot plants were found - wrong house. The police had been given the wrong address by a CI. Oopsie.

http://tiny.cc/YOfho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_P._Scott

Michael D. Bradbury, the District Attorney of Ventura County conducted an investigation into the raid and the aftermath, issuing a report on the events leading up to and on October 2, 1992. [1] He concluded that asset forfeiture was a motive for the raid. [6][7]

Or Donald Carlson?

http://tiny.cc/4S5ZL

http://tiny.cc/ln5p0

In a similar raid Aug. 26, San Diego County businessman Donald Lee Carlson was gravely wounded, prompting an investigation by the U.S. attorney into whether federal agents acted improperly. Such raids have caused debate among U.S. legal scholars about the latitude given police in the war on drugs. The concern is underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to review several property seizure cases.
"(Property seizure) raises huge amounts of revenue for the government, so there's an incentive to do it," said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor and past chairman of the American Bar Association's criminal procedures committee.
Attorney Nick Gutsue, a longtime friend and executor of [Donald Scott]'s estate, says law enforcement officials were looking for a reason to seize the 200-acre ranch. Scott had refused to sell his property to the federal government as part of an expansion of the adjacent Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

http://tiny.cc/ChnWN

Residents of San Diego County are well acquainted with the problems posed by informers. One case -- cited by Hyde -- occurred in Poway in 1992 when a bungled U.S. Customs Service raid resulted in the shooting of computer executive Donald L. Carlson. Carlson, who received a $2.75 million federal settlement and now lives in Dallas, was falsely fingered by a drug informer.
Another seizure mentioned by Hyde involved UCSD's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In 1989, a Scripps research vessel was seized in Hawaii after a small quantity of marijuana belonging to a former crew member was found aboard. Hyde would prohibit taking property from an innocent owner even if it had been used in criminal activity by another person.

Well, you can Google and find stuff like this for hours and hours. It all seems to start around 1991 (the abuse, that is) and keeps increasing right up to the present. I found no records of complaints about civil asset forfeiture that dated back further than 1991.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

As a law enforcement officer, but even more ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution, I HATE asset forfeiture, at least the way it is actually used.

I can only speak from the patrol, not investigative, perspective, but we actually have to have a nexus to dope sales when seizing cash. Either way, we are taking it as evidence for court, but not seizure. And that is only for a sales case, not for mere possession.

Either way, I do believe that the U.S. Constitution says that a person shall not be deprived of property without due process. Due process typically refers to a court hearing. What I find equally revolting is that it is not up to the government to prove that the property was aquired through illegal drug transactions, but up to the owner of the property to prove that it wasn't. Where is that in our Constitution?

But let us not forget my other near and dear friends, gun owners / manufacturers. It is not uncommon for the BATFE (I loathe that organization) to reinterpret laws or regulations on any given day to seize the assets of small gun manufacturers or gunsmiths. And, in order to go to court to petition to get their property back, they must pay 10% of the siezed asset amount as a "bail".

Either way, the whole process, especially when it comes to a department's budgetary issues, stinks of conflict of interest. The appearence looks bad to anyone who inquires, which is bad for the perceived legitimacy of the department.

 

[jks9199]

The money doesn't go to individuals. I don't know where you get that idea. My dept has a fund that the money goes into and its administered by the municipal gvt. My dept has limits on what they can even spend the money on. And as "easy" as these media stories make forfeiture sound, there are legal hurdles you have to jump to actually keep the stuff. We give back FAR more than we keep. What these stories leave out are how many instances this happens because the person "signs off" on the forfeiture as part of a plea or as "payment" of fines. If part of the plea is a 5K fine, many of our dopers just agree to sign off on the forfeiture of their seized property in lieu of cash.

In fact, there are strict limits on how the money or goods obtained in asset forfeiture can be used; for example, it cannot go to pay salaries, or fund things that wouldn't be possible otherwise. (I'm greatly oversimplying that last part; the idea is basically that you can't use asset forfeiture money to generate a SWAT team or interdiction team or something like that -- unless you had the money to pay for it in the first place. You can, however, buy the SWAT guys or interdiction team all sorts of big boy toys...)

Each state's forfeiture process is slightly different -- but there is some burden of proof on the government to show that the money or goods were obtained via criminal activity or to benefit criminal activity. That said -- lots of people don't fight a forfeiture, or sign their interests away, as Archangel said. (Also... lots of stuff that could theoretically be seized isn't because it would end up costing too much money -- like a car that's not paid off. The creditor still has interests in the car...)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Each state's forfeiture process is slightly different -- but there is some burden of proof on the government to show that the money or goods were obtained via criminal activity or to benefit criminal activity.

http://www.ccim.com/system/files/Civil_Asset_Forfeiture_0.pdf

• While the burden of proof for establishing cause for forfeiture is most often on the state, owners are often still burdened with establishing that ‘innocent owner’ exceptions apply.
• Many states still have ‘innocent owner’ provisions that make owners liable for criminal conduct about which they “reasonably should have known.”
• Time periods for contesting the forfeiture are between 15 and 90 days.
• Many states do not allow seized property to be repleaved (returned to owner pending judgment), while many others provide for this with bonds ranging from 10% to 200% the value of the property.

http://www.mackinac.org/1274

Once the state has met its limited burden, the burden shifts to the owner to establish his property’s innocence by a preponderance of the evidence (under both federal and Michigan laws). But under federal law, a strong preference is given to the government. By shifting the burden to the owner, both jurisdictions ignore the strongly defended presumption against the state involved in a criminal trial.

That said -- lots of people don't fight a forfeiture, or sign their interests away, as Archangel said. (Also... lots of stuff that could theoretically be seized isn't because it would end up costing too much money -- like a car that's not paid off. The creditor still has interests in the car...)

Lots of people don't fight a forfeiture because their assets have been seized and they no longer have the means to do so.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/

Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Willie Jones of Nashville, TN, gave an example of this abuse. Engaged in the landscaping business, Mr. Jones planned to buy a shrubbery in Houston, TX. Nurseries prefer cash from out-of-town buyers, so Mr. Jones planned to go there with $9,000 in cash. Officers detained him at the airport: suspicious of the large amount of cash, they accused him of being involved in drug-related activities. They eventually let him go, but they kept the money, and refused to even give him a receipt for it. Because he did not have 10% of the money seized to put up as a bond, he could not afford to challenge the seizure in the usual way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/asset-forfeiture.htm

In civil asset forfeiture proceedings, a criminal charge or conviction is not required to seize. Notice occurs through presentation of the warrant and publication in a newspaper. If a party files a claim within the answer period, a civil hearing commences. In uncontested situations, the forfeiture may be handled administratively.
Civil asset forfeiture hearings include a plaintiff (the United States in the case of Federal forfeitures), a defendant, and the property in question. The owner is effectively put in the position of being a third party claimant. Civil hearings involve a more lenient burden of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove by "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not.

...

In the case of a civil proceeding, the innocence of the property owner is typically not a defense. The owner may argue that no crime ever occurred or that the government lacked probable cause. Should these defenses succeed, the government returns the property to the owner. Such cases can cost the property owner upwards of $10,000 and take several months to resolve.

 

[Bruno@MT]

This and various other recent threads in the sudy have made me wonder.

Theorectically, America is this country where people are free and have all sorts of absolute rights granted to them by their constitution, and where the government(s) are bound by the various constitutions not to overstep their limits.

Many European countries otoh are places where the government is granted power by the various constitutions and supposedly this makes us less free that Americans. Or at least this is what many Americans have said to me in online discussions.

In reality however, the US seems to be this country that is ruled by various government agencies who can virtually do as they please in the name of the wars against terror, drugs, and various other things. The only people who seem to be safe are those with either money, clout, or both.

In my country otoh, my government has to let me review all info it has on me and correct it if incorrect, companies cannot get my medical or financial data, my property can't easily be forfeited, and the government and its various agencies are generally restricted in what the can do, and don't seem to overstep those boundaries on a general basis. Granted, I cannot opt out of social security payments (though I pay far less than what an American pays for decent medical coverage without dental) but on the whole, I seem to be more free for all practical intents and purposes.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This and various other recent threads in the sudy have made me wonder.

Theorectically, America is this country where people are free and have all sorts of absolute rights granted to them by their constitution, and where the government(s) are bound by the various constitutions not to overstep their limits.

Only one minor quibble: the Constitution doesn't grant citizens any rights. It simply outlines the rights that citizens have which the federal government is prohibited from infringing. We already had the rights, the government could not grant them to us.

However, unconstitutional infringement is not that unusual. The purpose of the Supreme Court in the US is to rule on cases it agrees to hear which often have a constitutionality component to them. I would hope that at some point, this civil forfeiture nonsense would wend its way to the SCOTUS and be heard.

Many European countries otoh are places where the government is granted power by the various constitutions and supposedly this makes us less free that Americans. Or at least this is what many Americans have said to me in online discussions.

In reality however, the US seems to be this country that is ruled by various government agencies who can virtually do as they please in the name of the wars against terror, drugs, and various other things. The only people who seem to be safe are those with either money, clout, or both.

In my country otoh, my government has to let me review all info it has on me and correct it if incorrect, companies cannot get my medical or financial data, my property can't easily be forfeited, and the government and its various agencies are generally restricted in what the can do, and don't seem to overstep those boundaries on a general basis. Granted, I cannot opt out of social security payments (though I pay far less than what an American pays for decent medical coverage without dental) but on the whole, I seem to be more free for all practical intents and purposes.

The main difference (as I see it) is that any country can choose to treat its citizens fairly, but if that treatment is not part of a framework of rights, but instead are granted to citizens by the government, then there is always the chance (however small) that they will be taken away again someday. The difference between our systems in practice may be negligible today, and indeed, your system may appear to have a slight benefit that ours in the US does not. I would still rather have our system, warts and all; but I would love to see this particular abuse addressed and removed. The police need to find another way to fill their coffers. I have no problems with seizure of civil assets subsequent to conviction - but on the basis of just 'probable cause', I cannot condone it.

 

[jks9199]

The US Constitution defines the federal government, and the relationship between the people and the government. However, it's only effective as long as both the people and the government hold each other to it. Way too many people in the US today don't hold their representatives, at any level, to account for their actions. Way too many people simply let the government do things without stopping them or demanding an explanation. Over the past two to four presidential administrations, the Congress has allowed the Presidency to usurp many of the powers that belong to the Congress, and the people have allowed this to happen.

 

[Ken Morgan]

We’ve got similar laws up here. It was actually appealed before our Supreme Court just that last year, http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc19/2009scc19.html
The appeal was denied.

The gentleman in this case had lights, fans, and other equipment used in growing pot and almost $30k in cash in his car when pulled over on the highway. He was in breach of his probation, (He was to be living in Ottawa and admitted to police he was living in the Toronto area). The police smelled pot in the car, but none was found. Was this guy guilty? Who knows, probably IMO. That’s not the point though.

Everything was seized, even though criminal charges were never filed.

I know of more than a few people who carry stupid amounts of cash on them for business reasons. They should not have to jump through hoops, and spend $$ on lawyers to prove that the cash is legitimate

To me, if you are convicted of a crime, the proceeds of that crime should be forfeit. The onus is on the Crown, (state) to prove that guilt. If you are not convicted, your property should still be your property.

It still boggles my mind that the government can seize your property based only on suspicion of a crime.