Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonunivgrad | Hacker News Reader

The government cannot keep civilly forfeited assets unless it wins a civil case in court, the same process by which anyone can sue and take everything to your name if they win. It also has a long pedigree, being in continuous use before, during, and after the founding era, making it unlikely that it would violate the 4th Amendment.

View on HN

Civil asset forfeiture is a very specific legal process that can only be initiated by the government against assets seized in the alleged commission of (or derived from) criminal activity.

Private citizens cannot use civil forfeiture against other private citizens.

However, you are correct that the underlying legal theory has been around in some form for hundreds of years dating back to medieval England.

That's not what I mean. I mean the burden of proof and due process is the same as if I sued you for, e.g., injuring or stealing from me.

No its not. The burden of proof is on the property to prove that it is not linked to the crime alleged.

That's not true. The government must prove, by a prepondernace of the evidence, that the property is linked to crime.

No, that's not true at the state level.

I've actually handled CAF cases before. Have you?

That is such crap. Everyone knows a lot of the people they target can not afford a legal battle and will simply walk away and count their loses and the people doing the taking know this.

It's worse than that. The government has essentially unlimited (time and money) resources to throw into a civil case. Even the most wealthy individuals are at a severe disadvantage.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I find it bizarre the government can bring civil cases against individuals and corporations. They also do this to enforce environmental measures, a laudable goal. But as an ignorant layperson I prefer the government stick to defining and prosecuting what is illegal and stay our of civil law.

Criminal prosecutions are for the condemnation of moral wrongdoing. Law serves many functions aside from that.

This is why the level of "justice" you receive is directly proportional to your ability to pay a team of lawyers in many cases.

The bill of rights was precisely to prohibit some things that were going on before and during the founding era.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com