- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Police Civil Asset Forfeitures Exceed All Burglaries in 2014
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:08 pm to OMLandshark
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:08 pm to OMLandshark
Oklahoma state Senator Kyle Loveless has introduced a bill to require law enforcement to return assets back to suspects if they are not convicted.
LINK
I love this response:
and
LINK /
LINK
I love this response:
quote:
Their message: The Senate bill would cripple authorities’ ability to disrupt drug operations, that abuses of the system occur only rarely, and that the current system offers protection for citizens.
and
quote:
Some of the speakers said the bill is an insult to the integrity of law enforcement officers.
“Today, I think this bill questions the very integrity of the men and women of law enforcement and prosecutors,” said Darrell Weaver, director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics.
LINK /
0
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:09 pm to O
quote:
Can you show me where it says you must convict someone before taking their property in the Constitution?
If memory serves, there are less than 5,000 words in the Constitution. Less than 10,000 including the 27 Amendments made to the Constitution. To my knowledge, the Constitution does not address asset forfeiture.
I remember my trolling phase too. I even go back to it every once in a while.
Defending civil asset forfeiture is a first though, even I never went full retard.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:11 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
In other words, if the state wants something, they better prove they deserve it.
They do. They have to prove the money was gotten by illegal means or were being hidden in an attempt to not pay taxes.
They have to prove that in court before it is forfeited unless the defendant agrees to forfeit it.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:12 pm to danilo
quote:
govt are the biggest criminals in the world
Have taken more resources and killed more people than all criminal groups combined
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:13 pm to theenemy
quote:
They do. They have to prove the money was gotten by illegal means or were being hidden in an attempt to not pay taxes.
They have to prove that in court before it is forfeited unless the defendant agrees to forfeit it.
They actually don't. It's guilty until proven innocent and the case is made against an inanimate object, not the owner of said object. Please look at the link I posted earlier in this thread.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:18 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
Because I had no idea what link he was talking about, because I wasn't responding to that post. But I watched it and 63,000 people getting robbed of 2.5 billion dollars come our to about 40,000 a person. That's a lot more than the $2,400 that guy got ripped off in Nevada. How does a cop take $40,000 per person and nobody asks any questions? And they can't afford lawyers? I guess not after getting 40,000 stolen from them.
Really funny SCOTUS case going on this term about this. Ready? Govt seized assets of person charged with Medicare fraud. If convicted he will owe restitution. So, the govt claims restitution money on the premise that he might spend it ON A LAWYER, or other things pretrial. So, they seize the untainted money before conviction, and defendant has to get a public defender now, because he can't afford a real one.
Luis v. US
Our judicial system at work folks. Hopefully govt loses, because if they don't everyone will be getting a public defender from now on.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:18 pm to theenemy
quote:From my understanding this is completely wrong. If that was the case, those parents from Philadelphia wouldn't have had to sue to get their home back because the city took it for their son being a druggie.
They do. They have to prove the money was gotten by illegal means or were being hidden in an attempt to not pay taxes.
They have to prove that in court before it is forfeited unless the defendant agrees to forfeit it.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:20 pm to aVatiger
Ok, thanks for that
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:20 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
They actually don't. It's guilty until proven innocent and the case is made against an inanimate object, not the owner of said object. Please look at the link I posted earlier in this thread.
That is incorrect.
Whenever money or property is seized a seizure warrant must be signed by a judge affirming that the money was involved in criminal activity of some kind.
After the warrant is signed, the defendant can dispute it and request a hearing to decide if there is cause to seize it.
The only thing the defendant has to provide is where the money came from. The police are still required to prove a criminal nexus.
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:21 pm to O
At least you can see where some of the money is being directed, instead of just a random deficient
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:24 pm to theenemy
quote:
That is incorrect.
Whenever money or property is seized it a seizure warrant must be signed by a judge affirming that the money was involved in criminal activity of some kind.
That was the case before, but may be changing due to Luis
If US wins at SCOTUS, they won't have to prove guilt by preponderance of evidence. Untainted money is fair game.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:24 pm to theenemy
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:26 pm to theenemy
quote:
Whenever money or property is seized a seizure warrant must be signed by a judge affirming that the money was involved in criminal activity of some kind.
Then how do they get 2.5 billion dollars where people weren't convicted? Stop talking shite.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:26 pm to OMLandshark
Sorry. I know you're not for it. But I just can't buy that they've found a loophole. In what lala land does a civilized society go to trial against inanimate objects? And if you can, it's not as if it stopped bein that persons property subject to 4th amendment protection anyways.
It's unconstitutional even if they think they found a loophole, bc 4th amendment.
It's unconstitutional even if they think they found a loophole, bc 4th amendment.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:28 pm to OMLandshark
Obviously government is acting as if it is not unconstitutional but what people are saying is that they're dead wrong.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:29 pm to theenemy
quote:
The only thing the defendant has to provide is where the money came from. The police are still required to prove a criminal nexus.
So the defendant has to prove the money was legally acquired....
That is guilty until proven innocent
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:30 pm to theenemy
quote:So the entire basis for the forfeiture is how one obtained the money.
The only thing the defendant has to provide is where the money came from
And the only way they get it back is to prove it was thought "innocent" means.
So again, how is that not "guilty until proven innocent?"
This post was edited on 11/17/15 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:30 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Then how do they get 2.5 billion dollars where people weren't convicted? Stop talking shite.
Really easy. You get arrested and some stuff seized. DA says he will drop all charges if you agree to not fight his seizures.
No conviction necessary.
It's really leverage to take your stuff instead of going to prison. There was a town in Texas that used to pull over like every 10th car or something and seize all cash in the car. How did they get away with this? The popo smelled weed every time and said he wouldn't press charges if you sign over your rights to fight the seizure in court. I can look up the name of the town in a moment.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:31 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Then how do they get 2.5 billion dollars where people weren't convicted? Stop talking shite.
Because Prosecutors will 99% of the time accept forfeitures in lieu of charges or plea bargains.
Posted on 11/17/15 at 10:35 pm to theenemy
quote:Keeping criminals off the street. That is, unless they allow the state to keep their money.
Because Prosecutors will 99% of the time accept forfeitures in lieu of charges or plea bargains
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News