No time limit nonsense, get a warrant. Charge them with a crime. That's the law no matter what the idiots running courthouses in this country think, your precedent has no power here.
Unfortunately, unreasonable is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying it's right, but some could plausibly interpret civil forfeiture as "reasonable."
But. You naively assume judicial philosophy must be bound by rules, logic, common sense, ethics, public interest, or precedent.
Strike: ~~The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. Further, property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.~~
Edit: To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries claims the Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. Further, they created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. So property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.
Worse, the rules for civil forfeiture are flipped. Whereas people charged in criminal court are presumed innocent until proven guilty, somehow property must be proven innocent. Apparently courts can prove a negative, even if logic cannot.
IANAL. Trying to grok the judicial philosophies of the r/iamverysmart reactionaries breaks my brain. These helped me kinda grasp what's happening:
Bennis v. Michigan
"On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime."
https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/
Civil versus criminal forfeiture
"...assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
The 4th ammendment gives individuals the protection from unreasonable siezure of property.
For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t.
No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.
> No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought...
Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? Vs some kind of cunning legal hack?
No, I'm saying criminal charges are only required for criminal types of sanctions, and what civil forfeiture does isn't in that scope.
That's not to say I think its fine: I think its often bad for policy reasons, and the details of some of the current uses (especially state/local seizures under federal law) have particular constitutional and policy issues.
Also while I am ensured of this right by the constitution, the passage "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." affirms that these rights are not granted but instead fundamental. Like the first amendment and others this is one of the "certain unalienable rights" granted by our creators.
Then look at Capitalism. Exploiting labor to drain any opportunity of wealth building from the working class and transferring it to those with wealth.
People have this twisted idea that America is a moral or ethical place. It's not. We live in a toxic culture and it has always been and it will continue to be. There is no escape.
It's not like I have a suitcase of money in my trunk and I've been pulled over by the police without cause and I can refuse to give consent.
Therefore I don't think the 4 amendment applies.
Isn't the argument for CAF that the mere possession of the large sum of money is just cause to confiscate it? That's why a time limit would work. DUring that time period, they could try to get a warrant. The judge would not give a warrant if that is the only evidence. Then the assets would be returned.
If I sign up for an account on Facebook, then I agree to waive my first-amendment rights.
If I walk into any number of stores or churches or government buildings, I agree to waive my second-amendment rights.
Sixth amendment? Just keep redefining "speedy" and make enough excuses for trials delayed and justice denied.
Tenth Amendment? If a state passes a law judged odious by the Federal Government, then kiss your funding sources bye-bye!
The constitution protects private dictators from interference by the government, not citizens from interference by private dictators. It’s an important distinction to remember in the USA
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can say anything you want "in the public square" or "with a free press".
For example, go to the public library, or a government building, and they will have a little patch of land designated as the "Free Speech Z0ne" where Jehovah's witnesses and PETA fanatics camp out and hold up signs and vie for your attention.
You can go on Facebook and say stuff, but that's not "First Amendment Free Speech", that's a "private platform" and Facebook's standards control your speech there, not the First Amendment.
I am sorry but you will never convince me that private companies should have more power than the government. It's such an idiotic premise on so many levels and it blows my mind that people like you still come around with that bullshit xkcd comic as if it means anything or is a sound argument for censorship.
Again your 2nd amendments can not supercede my right to keep gunners off my property. It's my property not yours. You can walk around all day with your 50 cal rifle on your property and (lots of ) public land, depending on the state
I could go on...
Relevant XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
You can consent to searches all you want without giving up your rights to not have your stuff taken.