Fair? Not entirely. Constitutional? Yes.
Not “Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.” Do YOU believe it’s constitutional in relation to the 4th’s protections against unwarranted search and seizure?
Personally, I find that the courts reasoning to be weaselly in the extreme. IIRC they said that the 4th doesn’t apply because they’re not charging a person, but the property itself witch is, IMHO, ridiculous.
I don’t understand the question. The Supreme Court has spoken - the issue is settled.
Constitutional?
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment: No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I would like to see the Supreme Court case that rules it ok to take an innocent person’s cash and return only a fraction of it. Has an asset forfeiture case been brought before the Court where a conviction was not brought? In many of these cases, the police do not even make any kind of charge against the person.
If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, and the issue of the constitutionality of these seizures is in front of you, how would you rule?
You understand the question, you chickenshit-you’ve been asked for a personal opinion, and you know that an honest answer will make you look like an even bigger police suckuo than you already are.
Asking **Smapti **to make a personal, conscious judgment ?! Do you want the man to explode, you bastards ?
Trick question!
I would likely rule to uphold the seizure - neither the 4th or 5th amendment protects ill-gotten goods.
Even ill-gotten goods require probable cause and a warrant.
Probable cause and a warrant relates to criminal actions against persons. Money isn’t people, and civil forfeiture is civil, not criminal.
You are mistaken.
Here is the problem: the money is seized as 'evidence" of wrong-doing. Evidence is a thing to be used in the course of prosecution on criminal charges. No prosecution occurs, because no charges are brought. Hence, the authorities are obligated to return the “evidence”. If they charged the “suspects” with something, anything, they may hold what ever evidence is relevant to the charges, instead they just take the money and force the proper owner to go to great effort to get it back.
Which supports my assertion: in order to catch criminals, the police have to be able to think like criminals, and in the end, it becomes a habit, they become like criminals.
And the Supreme Court has not ruled on the practice of arbitrary asset seizure, the chargeless, arrestless kind, because it has not come before them. It is still unconstitutional, by letter, until the Court says that it is ok. This is exactly the kind of thing the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent.
So, if we may revisit a topic that was raised a couple dozen pages ago, Michael Brelo has been found not guilty of manslaughter.
In other words, I was right.
The fact that it took 14 officers, and 135+15 shots to kill 2 innocent people tells me something about the lack of training and professionalism in that police department.
I can understand Brelo’s acquittal given there was no way to determine which of the 150 shots killed the 2 people. Those officers need to all be looking for new jobs tomorrow, preferably at Walmart.
Having a stroke? Perhaps this taser and some pepper spray might help. It’s cool right? How 'bout if we call you “Sir”. Yee-haw.
Is there one in Antarctica?
He blasted that guy in the face with pepper spray for 8 seconds. People treat roaches they are trying to kill with more respect than that.
Yep.
You were right that a criminal justice system that lets cops get away with just about anything, as long as the cop repeats the mantra that he feared for his safety, would find a cop who shot two unarmed people not guilty.
Kudos.
Hey, with all those bullets flying, blood spraying around, perps thrashing around from bullet strikes, they might have been reaching for a weapon! How could he be sure they weren’t? Moving your hand to the general vicinity of your waist band is enough.