Re: Asset Forfeiture

[Erikus4@aol.com]

<< I'm not a lawyer.. I don't understand what that all means.. all I know 
 is that the US Spreme Court has ruled it is legal for a (any) govt to 
 take your possesions with only suspicion.  >>

A web search would disclose more more info, and likely more accurate info to 
boot.  I claim no expertise in the legalities of asset forfeiture.

In cases where the criminal is found guilty of a crime, it likely isn't 
difficult to seize the fruits of the crime.  In cases where the criminal 
isn't found guilty or isn't prosecuted because of a lack of evidence, or some 
other reason, asset forfeiture gives Govt a vehicle  (no pun intended) by 
which they can still get at the fruits of the crime.  Specific legislation 
gives Govt the authority to seize specific types of property (vehicles, cash, 
etc) which were likely used in the criminal activity.  The legal system deals 
with the forfeiture as a civil matter against the property itself, with the 
corresponding reduction in the proof required - usually a preponderance of 
the evidence.  That gets around the difficulty which prevented a criminal 
conviction in the first place.  I believe the owner can defend against the 
forfeiture.

Forfeiture could be a useful tool in the "War On Drugs" but it is subject to 
much abuse.  The stories of its abuse have been reported by many of the 
television news journals and such.  In many places the Govt (police dept or 
what-have-you) gets to keep the forfeited property.  Evidently the people in 
charge don't quite see the problem associated with making asset forfeiture an 
income-generating enterprise.

Please forgive me any errors in my explanation.  Do a web search on on 
"asset" and "forfeiture" and you'll find lots more.  Go.com gives my over 
1300 hits.

Here's an Idaho statute dealing with controlled substances.
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=370270044.K

E. O'Daniel