http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2010.asp

And there’s your problem: modern law has been written which allows someone to go through due process (of a perverse kind), and be deprived of their property when they cannot meet an impossible legal standard.

Clever, eh?

thorn

;-)

Unconstitutional.

Thanks for the clarification.

The asset forfeiture case is separate from the criminal case, and is brought under civil law. The cases are called something like “State of Tennessee vs. One 2003 Ford Bronco VIN 123456789″.

Unlike a criminal defendant, the inanimate civil defendant in these cases is not entitled to legal representation. The original owner of the property, if they participate in the case, will file as a third-party claimant.

Since it’s a civil case, the standard for the government to win is “preponderance of the evidence” instead of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

And if that sounds like an utter and complete pile of bull@#$%, well it is.

I guess that makes too much sense.

I’m covering the story on my blog.

This is reality in the U.S. in 2008. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Don’t be a hopeless slave. Be a slave with minimal hope.

Isn’t that sort of the same opinion and judgment that was used in justification of abusive PATRIOT Act measures? The thinking was that even though the new powers certainly opened the door for and encouraged abuses of power, we can certainly trust our law enforcement officials to only use those powers for genuine pursuit of terrorists and terrorists alone.

Yeah… that hasn’t worked out so well. Neither has this. You have to wonder what the folks who write these opinions are thinking, and what efforts they’re going to in order to avoid readily available news coverage that definitively, conclusively and quickly proves them wrong.

I wrote a law review article (not available online) on the case of Bennis v. Michigan. The ruling in this SCOTUS case states that cars (and presumably all other kinds of property, including houses) can be forfeited to the state even when the owners were not themselves engaged in the crime. In the facts of the case, the wife of an accused John was trying to prevent the forfeiture of her car in a prostitution case. The car was community property (i.e., making her half owner).

Needless to say, the state won, thereby adding injury to the woman’s insult. A ridiculous outcome. One of the hypotheticals arising in the case was the idea that a homeowner could lose their home to the state by virtue of one of their teenage children (or a friend of a teenage child), without the knowledge of the homeowner, being caught smoking a joint in the house. The justices opined that the judgment (and professionalism!) of prosecutors and law enforcement could be relied upon to ensure that such an injustice does not occur. Heh.

They were talking a few years ago doing such things here in Eureka, CA. The only thing that stopped the discussion was the City of Oakland, CA was involved in a lawsuit over their similar forfeiture policy at the same time.

Kind of a shame we had a city council election looming and, seems to me, the only concern any of the candidates had about Eureka starting a similar seizure program was Oakland’s lawsuit. Otherwise they didn’t seem concerned with the right or wrong of it at all.