You might not remember, but we’ve gone over this before. I’ll remind you of your comments the last time we talked about forfeiture laws, and how much they allow the government to fuck people over.
Now, it might very well be possible, even likely, that you’ll eventually get your shit back, assuming that everyone on the government side abides perfectly by the law, that you don’t allow yourself to be intimidated, that you aren’t wrongfully charged simply because you contest the forfeiture, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that there are systematic abuses within the system that aren’t nearly as easy to overcome as it is being made to appear. It also doesn’t change the fact that seizures are pretty close to a “presumption of guilt”, when we like to think that our legal system follows “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.”
I’m only correcting the claim that the onus is on the owner of the property to prove he (or his property) is innocent. Do not mistake this minor correction for my wholesale endorsement of the forfeiture system.
There ya go, Bricker. Ask and ye shall receive! Praise Bob!
Any second now, I expect you will either abandon posting in this thread, or try and claim that this is different somehow. Prove me wrong or prove me right.
Had to sue to get his money back. Taken from him. Seized under the very statute you quoted. Falsely.
At this point, you’re probably wondering if you can get away with saying that one or two cases “isn’t statistically significant”. Go ahead, try that and one out for size.
btw, it only took a quick google for “cash seizures” to come up with this hit, on the first page.
So just like the commerce clause is cited whenever there is cause to maybe think that possibly something might in the future affect interstate commerce in some way, now it’s ok to seize cash because it might, at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs.
No, if somehow the owner has to sue to get her money back, then you’re right.
Unfortunately, it’s unclear to me whether she needs to sue. She apparently HAS sued, but is she simply trying to force the government’s hand? That is – is there already an asset forfeiture suit by the government against her? Was it completed with a finding against her? Is it still pending? Or are you suggesting the government simply took the money and said to her, “Sue us to get it back!” in blatant violation of the existing law?
Well, no. They seized the moeny because he waived his right to it.
In other words, they “followed” those statutes; he surrendered his claim to the money.
Of course, the way in which they compelled him to execute that waiver was highly illegal.
How many cash seizures happen every week?
Claiming that one, two, or ten incidents since the year 2000 represents The Way It’s Done is a gross error. I bet I can find ten incidents of cops planting evidence on suspects; I don’t hear too many people saying that this is the ordianry state of affairs.
Except that the standard is not, as you claim, “…at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs…” It’s unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court’s opinion: “…there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense.”
Judging by the information in the article, I think it is disturbing that the court came to this opinion. It seems to me that the judges in question based the decision on the facts that the narcotics dog smelled traces of drugs and that Gonzolez had lied about being arrested for DUI, carrying cash and about who the vehicle had been rented by. I sincerely hope that there were more facts presented in the case but excepted by the news article. Otherwise, the whole situation disgusts me.
Still, without much digging I was able to find cases where the statute you cited was abused, and the onus was then on the citizen to prove their innocence and/or wrong-doing on the part of the state.
And as I predicted, your response was along the lines that it was “statistically insignificant”.
I never claimed that it was business as usual. I don’t think anyone here did. But it does happen, and it should not.
Heck, we wouldn’t even have this thread if it hadn’t happened.
BTW, anyone heard anything more about the OP? Did he get his Xbox back? Or that being handled by the same person who is return Sarah Palin’s clothes to the RNC?
Ask and ye shall receive! Praise Bob!