Civil Forfeiture -Good day in MI

[stockrex]

Finally I can start paying for my starbucks in cash and carry more than $5 in my wallet.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/10/snyder_signs_michigan_civil_as.html

Sign of other states to follow if they have not already?

 

[Garak]

That's the way it should be. Any forfeiture here is to the Crown. The police get none of it.

 

[hatt]

CF doesn't need more transparency or twinks. It needs to go away.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

How long has this been around? I have only heard of it the last few years

 

[KrisZ]

It's been around forever. It coms from the English feudal law that all land and property on it belongs to the crown. If you were in the good graces with the crown you got awarded with land ownership and if you fell out of good graces the crown could take away part or all of the land it gave you.

Unfortunately US is becoming a feudal state.

 

[OneEyeJack]

The bill is nothing more then "feel-good" legislation.

Here are some examples.

Evidently the police convinced the politicians that going through the courts to take things from citizens was way too much trouble and so the politicians short-circuited the process. There's now no need to bother with details like laws, due process and civil right. No charges need to be filed and citizens have no recourse.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
Finally I can start paying for my starbucks in cash and carry more than $5 in my wallet.



If you don't have any cash, they'll take your car! I don't see anything in the bill that says citizens will have the right to due process. It's amazing the government has the power to seize a citizen's assets without a court ruling.

I remember when the rumor was if you went to Mexico, the police were corrupt and could just take your car - it's done here!

 

[buck91]

dishdude, Power and authority are not synonymous. The various tiers of government have the power to do many things, but the authority to do much less.

 

[btanchors]

I have heard many horror stories about CF, but I just do not get it. Doesn't one of our amendments to the constitution say no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process? I can understand CF in the context of someone committing a crime and found guilty, but how can this happen to people not committing crimes? Can't someone sue and prevail on the basis their constitutional rights were violated? Obviously, I am missing something because I just don't understand how this can happen to innocent people.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: btanchors
I have heard many horror stories about CF, but I just do not get it. Doesn't one of our amendments to the constitution say no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process? I can understand CF in the context of someone committing a crime and found guilty, but how can this happen to people not committing crimes? Can't someone sue and prevail on the basis their constitutional rights were violated? Obviously, I am missing something because I just don't understand how this can happen to innocent people.


WE are not held without due process.

However, since are possessions ($$$) are not able to speak for themselves or call a lawyer ... they are held indefinitely.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: hatt
CF doesn't need more transparency or twinks. It needs to go away.

That's not even realistic. Up here, we have proceeds of crime legislation. If someone is, say, for example, a drug dealer, and buy a house and boat and cars and so forth with his drug money, he gets said proceeds of crime forfeited. Otherwise, what would you do? Give him a few months in jail and let him return to his previous lifestyle?

Of course, we don't need seizures without due process, and we don't need seizures for idiotic or banal reasons. But, there are valid reasons for civil forfeiture.

It's safe to say that if you get a guy on a minor trafficking charge, it's not fair that he go to jail for years on end. But, when you see he's got a new car, truck, boat, house, and RV and his tax returns showed he never earned more than $10,000 a year in his life, there's a disconnect between the two realities. And that was always the gap up here. Traffic some cannabis, get a couple months in jail or a fine. That's just the cost of doing business, in that case. But, when the assets are a little high for someone who claims to be a casual labourer, let the forensic accountants loose.

 

[hatt]

The definition of civil forfeiture is without due process.

 

[Garak]

Ah, okay, that's a bit different than the definition here; my misunderstanding. Something can be forfeited as part of a sentence (i.e. the drug itself, a computer used for a crime, a gun used for a crime), and there's obviously due process there. However, the proceeds of crime stuff is a separate process, outside of the criminal trial, and it's a civil court, so it's technically a civil forfeiture up here, and there definitely is due process.

 

[hatt]

Down here they take. And that's it. No hearing. No evidence presented. No court. It's up to you to try and get it back. No idea how they get away with it. I guess the sheeple are scared to death of all the boogie men our dear leaders talk of.

 

[Garak]

Is there a specific procedure to deal with it, like a procedure actually set up for it, or does someone have to muddle their own way through it with a lawyer through a more generic court process? If it's the latter, that would be problematic up here. Up here, they do what some sort of due process procedure through the legislation authorizing it, not some ad hoc kind of thing where you just happen to sue the government.

In the other thread, where I mentioned vehicle seizures for traffic infractions, there is a procedure for dealing with that. For the seizures for disqualified drivers, there is a procedure, too. Even for a roadside suspension, there are procedures to appeal that, since those are not part of any actual charge.