I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
I think somehow you all failed to read what I wrote.
I'm in agreement that if you can prove that a piece of property was actually commissioned in a crime, it doesn't matter if you can make charges stick to the person or not; that property is forfeit. I just think that a critical step is actually proving that the property was used/related to the crime, and not just seizing it indefinitely without any real recourse.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? I can list 10+ easy examples where your property is used in a crime without your consent and when not in your possession, does that mean it should be forfeit? Is that what you people are saying or am I missing something?
zeeny on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
The name of the warrant that lets you take shit without arresting someone? A search warrant. It lists the location to be searched, what they're looking for, and anything to be seized.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
In all those cases property crime occurred before the incident which actually would cause Bob to lose his car, so they are bad examples.
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
I think somehow you all failed to read what I wrote.
I'm in agreement that if you can prove that a piece of property was actually commissioned in a crime, it doesn't matter if you can make charges stick to the person or not; that property is forfeit. I just think that a critical step is actually proving that the property was used/related to the crime, and not just seizing it indefinitely without any real recourse.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? I can list 10+ easy examples where your property is used in a crime without your consent and when not in your possession, does that mean it should be forfeit? Is that what you people are saying or am I missing something?
I'm not saying there are no examples to the contrary. I'm saying that in many cases, Bob demanding that his property be returned at once... isn't going to fly.
Case in point, it seems like this guy is suspected of kiddie porn. So they took a lot of his equipment. Maybe they can stick charges on him and maybe not, but if there's kiddie porn all up in his camera and computer, I'm not so sure he can demand that he either be charged or get it back. I'd say that it might be in all of our collective best interest that the state hold onto it until the matter is resolved.
That's also not to say that there isan't a darker and more common side to this, where huge sums of cash are taken on suspicion of drug trafficking. Maybe you can't prove anything but you know he's guilty because he never complained, m i rite?
EDIT: Also what Doc said. We aren't necessarily talking about cases where something was stolen and then used in a crime. We're more talking about cases where we know for sure that the property in question was used in the crime, but can't necessarily prove it was the owner who did it.
Judging by what Obama has said in regards to those issues, I believe that he- if given the chance- can affect change in the way the "War on Drugs" is conducted- with more of a focus on deterrence and re-habilitation rather than simple incarceration.
Obama is also very vocal in his stance against recent over-reaching executive actions regarding civil liberties. I have every confidence that he would exercise restraint and roll back the excessive abuses that have come to pass in not only the past 8 years, but the past 20.
I believe Obama is the best candidate to bring real change to the way this country is run.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
In all those cases property crime occurred before the incident which actually would cause Bob to lose his car, so they are bad examples.
I live in a house with my sister, she invites a friend over. The friend sits on our computer and uses it to transfer X funds over a third party bank account without having the right to do it. Should our computer be forfeit even after it becomes clear during the investigation that it has no involvement outside this transaction?
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
I think somehow you all failed to read what I wrote.
I'm in agreement that if you can prove that a piece of property was actually commissioned in a crime, it doesn't matter if you can make charges stick to the person or not; that property is forfeit. I just think that a critical step is actually proving that the property was used/related to the crime, and not just seizing it indefinitely without any real recourse.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? I can list 10+ easy examples where your property is used in a crime without your consent and when not in your possession, does that mean it should be forfeit? Is that what you people are saying or am I missing something?
I'm not saying there are no examples to the contrary. I'm saying that in many cases, Bob demanding that his property be returned at once... isn't going to fly.
Case in point, it seems like this guy is suspected of kiddie porn. So they took a lot of his equipment. Maybe they can stick charges on him and maybe not, but if there's kiddie porn all up in his camera and computer, I'm not so sure he can demand that he either be charged or get it back. I'd say that it might be in all of our collective best interest that the state hold onto it until the matter is resolved.
That's also not to say that there isan't a darker and more common side to this, where huge sums of cash are taken on suspicion of drug trafficking. Maybe you can't prove anything but you know he's guilty because he never complained, m i rite?
I have zero problems with seizure of equipment within reason during an investigation and I doubt anybody does. However, there should be a clear set limit to the extent said equipment may be kept and it should be returned as soon as analysis is complete. Not until "the matter is resolved". Especially where computer equipment is concerned, imaging & deciding on relevance is trivial.
And hence we are back to where the owner must prove his innocence. That's the only kind of "anlysis is complete" that I can imagine you're talking about.
And hence we are back to where the owner must prove his innocence. That's the only kind of "anlysis is complete" that I can imagine you're talking about.
Huh? Hell no! I'm talking about forensics exhausting court admissible analysis methods on the property. There should never be a burden of proof on the owner. Then it's not seizure, it's blackmail.
You know that equipment X in the possession of numbskull A is being used to commit crime Q. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is responsible for Q, you may know that you don't even have enough evidence to try him. But you know X is used for Q and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be so if not held in the control of the state. What do you do?
You know that equipment X in the possession of numbskull A is being used to commit crime Q.
That's where I should stop reading, right?
You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is responsible, you may know that you don't even have enough evidence to try him. But you know the equipment is used for criminal purposes and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be so if not held in the control of the state. What do you do?
Nothing, because any sane law doesn't give you a right to do shit for "knowing".
I know he killed him.
I know I didn't rape her.
It's obvious he was the perpetrator.
Know & Obvious are unfortunately invalid in law & maths.
Edit: I do understand the moral side of what you're saying, but it's simply void as there is no such legal position as knowing, ergo, we can't have a legal punishment. Guilty & non-guilty is what it's called. As far as I know,they didn't use "innocent" for a reason.
You know that equipment X in the possession of numbskull A is being used to commit crime Q. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is responsible for Q, you may know that you don't even have enough evidence to try him. But you know X is used for Q and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be so if not held in the control of the state. What do you do?
Not a damn thing. If you cannot prove in a court of law that numbskull A is guilty, then you have no real reason to deprive him permanently of equipment X, regardless of the nature of crime Q.
Hell, if you're really that sure A is responsible for Q, then get a wiretap warrant (or equivalent depending on Q) and observe until you have the evidence needed to prosecute A for Q, get a guilty verdict and take permanent control of X.
You know that equipment X in the possession of numbskull A is being used to commit crime Q. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is responsible for Q, you may know that you don't even have enough evidence to try him. But you know X is used for Q and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to be so if not held in the control of the state. What do you do?
I'd do better police work, or seek to pass legislation making possession of x restricted or possession of x under given circumstances illegal. Then I would prosecute crimes.
I would not start down a slippery slope that demonstrably leads to abuses of power.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
---rant about the American Constitution that misses the point entirely---
The whole point here is that this is Unconstitutional. No person can be deprived of life, liberty or property unless convicted of a crime. In Criminal Forfeiture, the person is charged and then they get their shit taken away. In Civil Forfeiture, the person need not be charged with anything in order to take their property. They rationalize it by charging the property with a crime. This is nonsensical and unconstitutional. The problem with America is not that we cling to an outdated constitution it is that we don't pay any attention to what it actually says.
Edit: I just read your other posts and you don't know what you're talking about. You've missed the whole point of the way our nation is organized. Yes, we need to work on the Constitution, but we don't need foreigners who don't get why it was written the way it was telling us how to do it. I don't mean to come off as nationalistic or xenophobic, but I'm sure you would be a little pissed if I got all up in your legal grill and told you how to run your country, too.
No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.
Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.
You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.
But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.
EDIT: For the record, the investigation to these guys was IMO very reasonable. They owned a video rental shop AND a DVD copy station, both in the same street. They did a good job of making a legal argument and won, but the investigation wasn't uncalled for. They still got decent compensation money.
Uh, if you read the damn thing you would know that this should be a violation of the Constitution:
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.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's hard to blame the Constitution when the government can get away with ignoring the spirit of it and in many cases the wording of it. Due process is supposed to mean something.
Constitutional guarantees are what's supposed to prevent abuse on the application of the law. If the guarantees don't work, the Constitution doesn't work.
Again: if the "government can get away with ignoring the spirit" of the Constitution, then the Constitution is failing.
Oh, and Monroe, I did spend years studying your constitution as well as mine. I do know what I'm talking about, and I know more about why the mistakes are there, but maybe a little perspective is what is needed.
If you're gonna feel better, my country has crazy, broken religious policies, still funding the Catholic Church, we ARE a monarchy, which is slightly ridiculous and we should have implemented the federal structure in the Constitution.
Oh, and our Senate is completely broken and needs to be redone.
If the advice is good, what do I care about where it comes from?
You mentioned upholding the original meaning of the constitution. Do you think McCain or Obama plans to do this?
There is no sacred "original meaning" of the constitution.
This. There is only the actual meaning of the Constitution, as understood in our society today. Thus "Cruel and Unusual" is supported by our current standards of cruelty and... usualness... (wow, FF spellchecker sez that's a word) not on the standards understood by the people who wrote it down and signed it. (Which is why there is a reasonable case against the death penalty in our constitution if only we didn't have these queermos who think they can run off of the definition used by the signatories on the highest bench)
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
I'm with Doc on this one.
It's really easy to start changing the rules and assuming that everyone is guilty before they're even charged.
Then again, I'm in the "Better 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison" camp.
I think somehow you all failed to read what I wrote.
They sure did. Of course, you were a little unspecific. If the state has a suspicion that a gun was involved in a crime, then it has a duty to hold that weapon as evidence. They don't have the right to charge it with a crime and then appropriate it to pad the police budget.
No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.
Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.
You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.
But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.
EDIT: For the record, the investigation to these guys was IMO very reasonable. They owned a video rental shop AND a DVD copy station, both in the same street. They did a good job of making a legal argument and won, but the investigation wasn't uncalled for. They still got decent compensation money.
Uh, if you read the damn thing you would know that this should be a violation of the Constitution:
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.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's hard to blame the Constitution when the government can get away with ignoring the spirit of it and in many cases the wording of it. Due process is supposed to mean something.
Constitutional guarantees are what's supposed to prevent abuse on the application of the law. If the guarantees don't work, the Constitution doesn't work.
Again: if the "government can get away with ignoring the spirit" of the Constitution, then the Constitution is failing.
No, then the government is failing. By the same logic, laws against murder are failing because people are still murdered and therefore we should... change the laws against murder?
This thread sure 'asploded since I last checked it.
No, then the government is failing. By the same logic, laws against murder are failing because people are still murdered and therefore we should... change the laws against murder?
This thread sure 'asploded since I last checked it.
You're right, this thread has gone too far off topic. If you want, we can start one on the need for Constitutional reform on the US and I'll explain why your argument doen't really work.
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
The name of the warrant that lets you take shit without arresting someone? A search warrant. It lists the location to be searched, what they're looking for, and anything to be seized.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
Yes, but it has to be approved by the court first, and be displayed to the parties on arrival. You can't just drive up to Joe Anybody's house, and snatch his computer and television to pad your bureau's budget because he's supposedly participating in illegal P2P. There's got to be a due course of actions, or else we might as well just live in some corrupt third world country, because that's the kind of slippery slope these kinds of laws produce.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
No, then the government is failing. By the same logic, laws against murder are failing because people are still murdered and therefore we should... change the laws against murder?
This thread sure 'asploded since I last checked it.
You're right, this thread has gone too far off topic. If you want, we can start one on the need for Constitutional reform on the US and I'll explain why your argument doen't really work.
If you want to jump into the shark tank, go ahead and make that thread. I think Constitutional reform in this country will be meaningless until we get used to actually following what the damn thing says, and bringing the Government in line with the supreme law of the land takes precedence over reform in my book. In this situation, Constitutional reform doesn't mean a damn thing, which is why I am confused that you brought it up. The Constitution already prohibits it, so what could changing the Constitution accomplish?
The name of the warrant that lets you take shit without arresting someone? A search warrant. It lists the location to be searched, what they're looking for, and anything to be seized.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
You're right about this, because in the situations you describe, the guns and the car are being held as evidence in a crime, rather than charged with crimes themselves. The owners get the items back after any criminal or civil case associated with the items are concluded. In the case of Civil Forfeiture, there's not necessarily a charge brought against a person, nor does the state even have to prove that a crime has been committed. They just charge the property with a crime and never bother prosecuting it.
The name of the warrant that lets you take shit without arresting someone? A search warrant. It lists the location to be searched, what they're looking for, and anything to be seized.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
You're right about this, because in the situations you describe, the guns and the car are being held as evidence in a crime, rather than charged with crimes themselves. The owners get the items back after any criminal or civil case associated with the items are concluded. In the case of Civil Forfeiture, there's not necessarily a charge brought against a person, nor does the state even have to prove that a crime has been committed. They just charge the property with a crime and never bother prosecuting it.
Quick, someone write a program that makes the PC run off battery and display, "I wish to speak to a lawyer and I wish to have a Jury of my peers" over the monitor.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.
Agreed.
Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."
The name of the warrant that lets you take shit without arresting someone? A search warrant. It lists the location to be searched, what they're looking for, and anything to be seized.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
Yes, but it has to be approved by the court first, and be displayed to the parties on arrival. You can't just drive up to Joe Anybody's house, and snatch his computer and television to pad your bureau's budget because he's supposedly participating in illegal P2P. There's got to be a due course of actions, or else we might as well just live in some corrupt third world country, because that's the kind of slippery slope these kinds of laws produce.
Yeah, this is one of the most egregious problems with the Drug War. You use your new car used in the commission of a felony? It's forfeit. What's a felony? Possession of pretty much any recreational drug other than pot. So god help you if you're a slipping addict and get busted with a crack rock in the family car, because it's gone to police auction.
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
How are you sure he acquired it illegally?
Gut feeling. Maybe not "sure", but it just seems really highly suspicious that he'd be carrying briefcases for his cash winnings from casinos.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
How are you sure he acquired it illegally?
Gut feeling. Maybe not "sure", but it just seems really highly suspicious that he'd be carrying briefcases for his cash winnings from casinos.
If he had a briefcase filled with cash winnings from casinos, he's probably have tax forms from the casinos as well.
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
How are you sure he acquired it illegally?
Gut feeling. Maybe not "sure", but it just seems really highly suspicious that he'd be carrying briefcases for his cash winnings from casinos.
If he had a briefcase filled with cash winnings from casinos, he's probably have tax forms from the casinos as well.
Exactly, everything has paperwork nowadays. If he had gotten it from casinos, there would be a paper trail. His inability to produce either paper or a coherent explanation led to the seizure. His inability to coherently tell the officer how long he had been in the states and what his destination was prompted the search.
And for the semi-rich guy example above, if you pulled the money out of your bank, you could easily provide a receipt for said withdrawal. Not to mention, if you were semi-rich, you wouldn't be trucking around a quarter-million dollars in cash, because you would know that if it was lost, good luck replacing it if you didn't have insurance and a receipt to prove it.
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
How are you sure he acquired it illegally?
Gut feeling. Maybe not "sure", but it just seems really highly suspicious that he'd be carrying briefcases for his cash winnings from casinos.
If he had a briefcase filled with cash winnings from casinos, he's probably have tax forms from the casinos as well.
Exactly, everything has paperwork nowadays. If he had gotten it from casinos, there would be a paper trail. His inability to produce either paper or a coherent explanation led to the seizure. His inability to coherently tell the officer how long he had been in the states and what his destination was prompted the search.
And for the semi-rich guy example above, if you pulled the money out of your bank, you could easily provide a receipt for said withdrawal. Not to mention, if you were semi-rich, you wouldn't be trucking around a quarter-million dollars in cash, because you would know that if it was lost, good luck replacing it if you didn't have insurance and a receipt to prove it.
I keep it under my mattress. Now what?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
How are you sure he acquired it illegally?
Gut feeling. Maybe not "sure", but it just seems really highly suspicious that he'd be carrying briefcases for his cash winnings from casinos.
If he had a briefcase filled with cash winnings from casinos, he's probably have tax forms from the casinos as well.
Exactly, everything has paperwork nowadays. If he had gotten it from casinos, there would be a paper trail. His inability to produce either paper or a coherent explanation led to the seizure. His inability to coherently tell the officer how long he had been in the states and what his destination was prompted the search.
And for the semi-rich guy example above, if you pulled the money out of your bank, you could easily provide a receipt for said withdrawal. Not to mention, if you were semi-rich, you wouldn't be trucking around a quarter-million dollars in cash, because you would know that if it was lost, good luck replacing it if you didn't have insurance and a receipt to prove it.
I keep it under my mattress. Now what?
You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
All of those are fine reasons for it to go away. However, someone taking property because I can't provide a paper-trail is bullshit. Why is that okay?
Instead of a huge briefcase of cash it could easily be a different, extremely valuable item that has no paper trail. An heirloom for example, or something made by the person arrested. I agree with Bowen's argument on this issue.
You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
All of those are fine reasons for it to go away. However, someone taking property because I can't provide a paper-trail is bullshit. Why is that okay?
Instead of a huge briefcase of cash it could easily be a different, extremely valuable item that has no paper trail. An heirloom for example, or something made by the person arrested. I agree with Bowen's argument on this issue.
Stuff like this gets my blood a' boiling. But that's probably just the seat warmer.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
All of those are fine reasons for it to go away. However, someone taking property because I can't provide a paper-trail is bullshit. Why is that okay?
Instead of a huge briefcase of cash it could easily be a different, extremely valuable item that has no paper trail. An heirloom for example, or something made by the person arrested. I agree with Bowen's argument on this issue.
Stuff like this gets my blood a' boiling. But that's probably just the seat warmer.
But we're comparing apples and oranges here in order to just be outraged. If it was a family heirloom or something someone made and the cop took it, yes, we would be rightly outraged because then it was most likely incorrect. But in the case of a quarter million dollars in cash stuffed into a briefcase, for which the person has no reasonable explanation for, the officer was probably justified in seizing it because odds are most likely that it was going to be used for purposes other than legal ones.
Seriously, if you found a briefcase full to the brim of money, would you think it would belong to a by-the-book business man? Of course not.
You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
All of those are fine reasons for it to go away. However, someone taking property because I can't provide a paper-trail is bullshit. Why is that okay?
Instead of a huge briefcase of cash it could easily be a different, extremely valuable item that has no paper trail. An heirloom for example, or something made by the person arrested. I agree with Bowen's argument on this issue.
Stuff like this gets my blood a' boiling. But that's probably just the seat warmer.
But we're comparing apples and oranges here in order to just be outraged. If it was a family heirloom or something someone made and the cop took it, yes, we would be rightly outraged because then it was most likely incorrect. But in the case of a quarter million dollars in cash stuffed into a briefcase, for which the person has no reasonable explanation for, the officer was probably justified in seizing it because odds are most likely that it was going to be used for purposes other than legal ones.
Seriously, if you found a briefcase full to the brim of money, would you think it would belong to a by-the-book business man? Of course not.
Doesn't matter what the officer thinks "is likely." If people want to take your shit, they should have to prove that it was obtained/used illegally. Because if there is no requirement for a legal standard of proof, then there is absolutely nothing keeping them from taking valuable objects other than cash.
Posts
I'm sorry, but WHAT? I can list 10+ easy examples where your property is used in a crime without your consent and when not in your possession, does that mean it should be forfeit? Is that what you people are saying or am I missing something?
The name of the warrant that lets you take shit without arresting someone? A search warrant. It lists the location to be searched, what they're looking for, and anything to be seized.
As far as Bob is concerned, if I break into his house, force him under threat of violence to his children to give me his guns, and then go hold up a liquor store with said guns, Bob is assed out? Or as a less hot button example: I steal Bob's car and run someone over with it. I imagine Bob's getting his car back.
In all those cases property crime occurred before the incident which actually would cause Bob to lose his car, so they are bad examples.
Case in point, it seems like this guy is suspected of kiddie porn. So they took a lot of his equipment. Maybe they can stick charges on him and maybe not, but if there's kiddie porn all up in his camera and computer, I'm not so sure he can demand that he either be charged or get it back. I'd say that it might be in all of our collective best interest that the state hold onto it until the matter is resolved.
That's also not to say that there isan't a darker and more common side to this, where huge sums of cash are taken on suspicion of drug trafficking. Maybe you can't prove anything but you know he's guilty because he never complained, m i rite?
EDIT: Also what Doc said. We aren't necessarily talking about cases where something was stolen and then used in a crime. We're more talking about cases where we know for sure that the property in question was used in the crime, but can't necessarily prove it was the owner who did it.
Obama is also very vocal in his stance against recent over-reaching executive actions regarding civil liberties. I have every confidence that he would exercise restraint and roll back the excessive abuses that have come to pass in not only the past 8 years, but the past 20.
I believe Obama is the best candidate to bring real change to the way this country is run.
I live in a house with my sister, she invites a friend over. The friend sits on our computer and uses it to transfer X funds over a third party bank account without having the right to do it. Should our computer be forfeit even after it becomes clear during the investigation that it has no involvement outside this transaction?
I have zero problems with seizure of equipment within reason during an investigation and I doubt anybody does. However, there should be a clear set limit to the extent said equipment may be kept and it should be returned as soon as analysis is complete. Not until "the matter is resolved". Especially where computer equipment is concerned, imaging & deciding on relevance is trivial.
Huh? Hell no! I'm talking about forensics exhausting court admissible analysis methods on the property. There should never be a burden of proof on the owner. Then it's not seizure, it's blackmail.
That's where I should stop reading, right?
Nothing, because any sane law doesn't give you a right to do shit for "knowing".
I know he killed him.
I know I didn't rape her.
It's obvious he was the perpetrator.
Know & Obvious are unfortunately invalid in law & maths.
Edit: I do understand the moral side of what you're saying, but it's simply void as there is no such legal position as knowing, ergo, we can't have a legal punishment. Guilty & non-guilty is what it's called. As far as I know,they didn't use "innocent" for a reason.
Not a damn thing. If you cannot prove in a court of law that numbskull A is guilty, then you have no real reason to deprive him permanently of equipment X, regardless of the nature of crime Q.
Hell, if you're really that sure A is responsible for Q, then get a wiretap warrant (or equivalent depending on Q) and observe until you have the evidence needed to prosecute A for Q, get a guilty verdict and take permanent control of X.
I'd do better police work, or seek to pass legislation making possession of x restricted or possession of x under given circumstances illegal. Then I would prosecute crimes.
I would not start down a slippery slope that demonstrably leads to abuses of power.
The whole point here is that this is Unconstitutional. No person can be deprived of life, liberty or property unless convicted of a crime. In Criminal Forfeiture, the person is charged and then they get their shit taken away. In Civil Forfeiture, the person need not be charged with anything in order to take their property. They rationalize it by charging the property with a crime. This is nonsensical and unconstitutional. The problem with America is not that we cling to an outdated constitution it is that we don't pay any attention to what it actually says.
Edit: I just read your other posts and you don't know what you're talking about. You've missed the whole point of the way our nation is organized. Yes, we need to work on the Constitution, but we don't need foreigners who don't get why it was written the way it was telling us how to do it. I don't mean to come off as nationalistic or xenophobic, but I'm sure you would be a little pissed if I got all up in your legal grill and told you how to run your country, too.
Constitutional guarantees are what's supposed to prevent abuse on the application of the law. If the guarantees don't work, the Constitution doesn't work.
Again: if the "government can get away with ignoring the spirit" of the Constitution, then the Constitution is failing.
Oh, and Monroe, I did spend years studying your constitution as well as mine. I do know what I'm talking about, and I know more about why the mistakes are there, but maybe a little perspective is what is needed.
If you're gonna feel better, my country has crazy, broken religious policies, still funding the Catholic Church, we ARE a monarchy, which is slightly ridiculous and we should have implemented the federal structure in the Constitution.
Oh, and our Senate is completely broken and needs to be redone.
If the advice is good, what do I care about where it comes from?
This. There is only the actual meaning of the Constitution, as understood in our society today. Thus "Cruel and Unusual" is supported by our current standards of cruelty and... usualness... (wow, FF spellchecker sez that's a word) not on the standards understood by the people who wrote it down and signed it. (Which is why there is a reasonable case against the death penalty in our constitution if only we didn't have these queermos who think they can run off of the definition used by the signatories on the highest bench)
They sure did. Of course, you were a little unspecific. If the state has a suspicion that a gun was involved in a crime, then it has a duty to hold that weapon as evidence. They don't have the right to charge it with a crime and then appropriate it to pad the police budget.
No, then the government is failing. By the same logic, laws against murder are failing because people are still murdered and therefore we should... change the laws against murder?
This thread sure 'asploded since I last checked it.
You're right, this thread has gone too far off topic. If you want, we can start one on the need for Constitutional reform on the US and I'll explain why your argument doen't really work.
Yes, but it has to be approved by the court first, and be displayed to the parties on arrival. You can't just drive up to Joe Anybody's house, and snatch his computer and television to pad your bureau's budget because he's supposedly participating in illegal P2P. There's got to be a due course of actions, or else we might as well just live in some corrupt third world country, because that's the kind of slippery slope these kinds of laws produce.
If you want to jump into the shark tank, go ahead and make that thread. I think Constitutional reform in this country will be meaningless until we get used to actually following what the damn thing says, and bringing the Government in line with the supreme law of the land takes precedence over reform in my book. In this situation, Constitutional reform doesn't mean a damn thing, which is why I am confused that you brought it up. The Constitution already prohibits it, so what could changing the Constitution accomplish?
You're right about this, because in the situations you describe, the guns and the car are being held as evidence in a crime, rather than charged with crimes themselves. The owners get the items back after any criminal or civil case associated with the items are concluded. In the case of Civil Forfeiture, there's not necessarily a charge brought against a person, nor does the state even have to prove that a crime has been committed. They just charge the property with a crime and never bother prosecuting it.
Quick, someone write a program that makes the PC run off battery and display, "I wish to speak to a lawyer and I wish to have a Jury of my peers" over the monitor.
Yeah, this is one of the most egregious problems with the Drug War. You use your new car used in the commission of a felony? It's forfeit. What's a felony? Possession of pretty much any recreational drug other than pot. So god help you if you're a slipping addict and get busted with a crack rock in the family car, because it's gone to police auction.
The cops should not have such incentives.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003901973_webspeeding25m.html
I don't read Harry Potter.
So, if I happened to be semi-rich and put a lot of money in a suitcase, a police organization could detain my possession for breaking a completely unrelated law because I don't have a receipt for said money? Thats kind of fucked up.
Granted, I'm sure he acquired it illegal, but fuck.
How are you sure he acquired it illegally?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Gut feeling. Maybe not "sure", but it just seems really highly suspicious that he'd be carrying briefcases for his cash winnings from casinos.
If he had a briefcase filled with cash winnings from casinos, he's probably have tax forms from the casinos as well.
Exactly, everything has paperwork nowadays. If he had gotten it from casinos, there would be a paper trail. His inability to produce either paper or a coherent explanation led to the seizure. His inability to coherently tell the officer how long he had been in the states and what his destination was prompted the search.
And for the semi-rich guy example above, if you pulled the money out of your bank, you could easily provide a receipt for said withdrawal. Not to mention, if you were semi-rich, you wouldn't be trucking around a quarter-million dollars in cash, because you would know that if it was lost, good luck replacing it if you didn't have insurance and a receipt to prove it.
I keep it under my mattress. Now what?
You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
All of those are fine reasons for it to go away. However, someone taking property because I can't provide a paper-trail is bullshit. Why is that okay?
Instead of a huge briefcase of cash it could easily be a different, extremely valuable item that has no paper trail. An heirloom for example, or something made by the person arrested. I agree with Bowen's argument on this issue.
Stuff like this gets my blood a' boiling. But that's probably just the seat warmer.
But we're comparing apples and oranges here in order to just be outraged. If it was a family heirloom or something someone made and the cop took it, yes, we would be rightly outraged because then it was most likely incorrect. But in the case of a quarter million dollars in cash stuffed into a briefcase, for which the person has no reasonable explanation for, the officer was probably justified in seizing it because odds are most likely that it was going to be used for purposes other than legal ones.
Seriously, if you found a briefcase full to the brim of money, would you think it would belong to a by-the-book business man? Of course not.
Doesn't matter what the officer thinks "is likely." If people want to take your shit, they should have to prove that it was obtained/used illegally. Because if there is no requirement for a legal standard of proof, then there is absolutely nothing keeping them from taking valuable objects other than cash.