Property Seizures.

While there is a legitimate concern here, there's a lot of emotive rhetoric in the way it's written. I wouldn't trust the factual reporting in this article too far.
 
Eminent domain is commonly used in sick ways, and matters are only going to get worse as this recession continues and cities, banks, and whomever else look for whatever way they can to take as much as they can to cover their own asses.
 
This isn't eminent domain abuse, though I agree that there's a lot of that as well.

MrIndigo said:
While there is a legitimate concern here, there's a lot of emotive rhetoric in the way it's written. I wouldn't trust the factual reporting in this article too far.
Click to expand...

This isn't a news article, it's an op-ed for a libertarian publication. Of course there's a lot of emotive rhetoric :happybrain:
 
These political groups still haven't learned the soft-sell. They'd convince a lot more people if they kept things straightforward instead of trying to incite hysteria. Inciting hysteria will only get the people who are already on your side excited.

For instance, the "facts" of the kid with the drug paraphenalia and 17500 cash is highly dubious. Even if he had recently won a settlement, they don't pay out court winnings in cash, so he would have had to have withdrawn that surprisingly large amount of cash to drive around, unlicensed. And you know what? If I was selling drugs from an unlicensed car, that's the story I would have told the cops too.

A not-quite-but-possibly-related sidenote: In Australia (I don't know about elsewhere), cash and bank bonds are handled differently to all other property in terms of ownership title. Possession (acquired legally, i.e. no theft) of these items transfers title as well; you cannot have conversion of cash/bonds, because they carry their legal title with them by means of their instantaneous exchangability.
 
I'm in agreement with MrIndigo in many ways, though I do absolutely agree that the authorities overstep their bounds constantly (no news there, though). But there's one quote from the article:

And in Indiana, where Anthony Smelley is still fighting to get his money back, forfeiture proceeds are enriching attorneys who don’t even hold public office, a practice that violates the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Was this explained later in the article? I didn't have time to read it all, but if they just threw out this unsubstantiated and broad claim, I'd have to call bullshit on a LOT more.
 
Yes, they do.

While police departments have been benefiting from forfeiture policies for years, funneling the money to prosecutors raises even more problems. “Police merely seize the property,” David Smith says. “They don’t determine which cases go forward. It’s a violation of due process if the prosecutor, the person actually deciding whether or not to bring a forfeiture case, benefits somehow from the decision. You can’t have the same person deciding which cases to take also directly benefiting from those cases.”
Click to expand...
Page 4
 
b0b3rt, that's not a violation of the constitution. It's unethical, and probably illegal, but it's not unconstitutional, at least to my understanding of the constitution.

After all, what amendment/clause is it violating?

And I have some doubts about the story as well, this seems like something that the ACLU would jump on, and they haven't. I think I'm going to bet that he was selling drugs, and has a massive amount of spunk to be suing.
 
Ferrouswheel said:
all, what amendment/clause is it violating?
Click to expand...

"It’s a violation of due process" aka the 4th/14th Amendments.

But still, it apparently doesn't explain how this money is allegedly funneled up to the prosecutors. That's a very big claim to make without any proof.
 
A site as pretentious as "reason.com" that doesn't offer any citations for it's claims, is about as credible as sack of flaming turds outside the front door.
 
Melodrama Man said:
A news agency as pretentious as CNN that doesn't offer any citations for it's claims, is about as credible as sack of flaming turds outside the front door.
Click to expand...


cwutididthere

You seriously don't believe this is happening?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Property_seizures_seen_as_piracy_.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/27/191414.shtml

An appeals court in Florida even ruled that police can personally receive bounties of 25 percent of the value of anything they seize from you, such as your car, bank accounts or home.
Click to expand...

Not prosecutors then, the police. An even worse incentive system.
 
DM said:
"It’s a violation of due process" aka the 4th/14th Amendments.

But still, it apparently doesn't explain how this money is allegedly funneled up to the prosecutors. That's a very big claim to make without any proof.
Click to expand...

I agree that the property seizure might be unconstitutional. However, prize money might be somewhat unethical, but it's not unconstitutional. Furthermore, under the current interpretation it's not unconstitutional.

The concept of prize money has considerable historical precedent. Unfortunately, its abuse has also had immense historical precedent.


I suppose this all goes to show us that the poor in the US get screwed. Over in South Carolina you have the Lt. Gov. comparing the poor to dogs, in that feeding them only encourages them to breed.
 
DM said:
"It’s a violation of due process" aka the 4th/14th Amendments.

But still, it apparently doesn't explain how this money is allegedly funneled up to the prosecutors. That's a very big claim to make without any proof.
Click to expand...
If they follow due process, and it's for the public welfare, they are within their bounds. Public welfare of all forms must come first. Due process for emminent domain is fair compensation. Due process for drug lord confiscations
Ferrouswheel said:
b0b3rt, that's not a violation of the constitution. It's unethical, and probably illegal, but it's not unconstitutional, at least to my understanding of the constitution.

After all, what amendment/clause is it violating?

And I have some doubts about the story as well, this seems like something that the ACLU would jump on, and they haven't. I think I'm going to bet that he was selling drugs, and has a massive amount of spunk to be suing.
Click to expand...
is much simpler. Either way, constitutional.
 
Oh sorry, I assumed this was going to be eminent domain or something and skipped the article. This type of cash seizure is pretty much the same thing I am on about though; in fact "Municipalities have come to rely on confiscated property for revenue. Police and prosecutors use forfeiture proceeds to fund not only general operations but junkets, parties, and swank office equipment." is pretty much exactly what I was on about. This type of abuse has gotten a lot worse in the recent recession as cities begin reaching for money :(
 
There was a badgood quote in one of the articles where a mayor said, almost verbatim "This behaviour from the police is okay because we don't have any money and it pays for a second police car and maintains the police station."

Yep, you heard it here first. If your town is poor, you can steal money from other people.
 
MrIndigo said:
There was a badgood quote in one of the articles where a mayor said, almost verbatim "This behaviour from the police is okay because we don't have any money and it pays for a second police car and maintains the police station."

Yep, you heard it here first. If your town is poor, you can steal money from other people.
Click to expand...

thats pretty sad :/.
anyways the police definitely had no right to take that money imo
 
Aura Guardian said:
If they follow due process, and it's for the public welfare, they are within their bounds. Public welfare of all forms must come first. Due process for emminent domain is fair compensation. Due process for drug lord confiscations
is much simpler. Either way, constitutional.
Click to expand...

And following due process for seizing property involves getting a warrant, which is never done.

Next time, read the article.

(Oh, and there's nothing in the constitution that says public welfare MUST come first).
 
I have just began my Con Law class this week, so hopefully later in the semester I'll be able to really break this all down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top