Re: Asset Forfeiture

[Erikus4@aol.com]

>uh what crime? if there not convicted,  they didn't do it.

Nope.  Remember, "not guilty" does NOT mean "innocent."  If they aren't 
convicted it just means we can't incarcerate them.  I think some 
jurisdictions have the jury/judge find the person "innocent" but that's just 
using different words.

>in fact, where there aquited, they are considered to not have commited the 
crime.
>so why are they being punished for not commiting a crime? see my point?

OJ was also found not guilty but suffered through a losing civil trial.  Same 
difference.  Forfeiture is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.  And if the 
property loses at the civil trial, technically, it isn't an incorrect 
punishment.  It just means the proof wasn't there to put the criminal in 
jail.  The proof that can be established lies somewhere between 
"preponderance" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".

>you mean my CAR is a CITIZEN? it's aware and has rights???

If the law provides for it, such as in the forfeiture statutes, then there 
isn't a requirement of citizenship for the property to be sued.

>uh, I haven't been able to be able to find out IF you can get property back
>after they have taken it, I SUSPECT thaty is varies depending on where

If the owner is allowed to defend the civil suit for the property and wins, 
then the property likely must go back to him.  However, like you, I see many 
problems with this scheme - especially if the seized property is money.  It's 
quite likely that much property is seized with the slightest reason simply 
because the LEOs know that many/most people aren't able to defend the lawsuit.

I've heard reported that in many jurisdictions, carrying an excessive amount 
of money almost automatically results in forfeiture.  Ever buy a used car 
from a private party?  Luckily you didn't get stopped and searched on the way 
over.

(By the way, I'm of the opinion that the "War On Drugs" is rather worthless 
as a solution.)

E. O'Daniel