Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
"Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged."
Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too.
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf
It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.
That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.
The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place.
But you do get the due process after the fact.
Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money.
There probably should be some quick safeguards put in place to make sure the cops aren't just stealing cash for no reason forcing a court hearing to get it back. But the whole process is a lot less thieving that WAPO depicts.
"Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars" -- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
There's no trial because they go after tiny amounts, generally with no evidence of guilt, knowing that it won't be worth the owner's time to fight back.
Read that article I linked if you haven't already, it's quite extensive and well-researched. And then tell me that this is something other than straight-up highway robbery.
Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive.
NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.
Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court.
In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees.
Though I'd support making the government pay attorneys fees in cases where the money was found not to be illegal. That should prevent government from just going around and stealing money in bad faith.
Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996).
There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.
But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense.
US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.
But it makes absolutely no sense to apply those methods to cash confiscated from individuals not charged with a crime. Having cash isn't a criminal offense, even while black - although as a practical rather than a moral matter, this young man would have been smarter to open an account with a large national bank or get a cashier's check to open an account in LA rather than carrying the cash around.
Um, what?
"US vs kitchen knife covered in blood" "US vs flaming car wreck"
Ridiculous. If an inanimate object is involved in a crime, it is evidence. Not a suspect!
What does it mean to charge money with a crime? It clearly cannot defend itself, so the concept of a trial is moot to begin with. If the money is "found guilty", which of course lacking a defense it will be, does the government put it in prison (sorry, "correctional institution") to prevent it from doing further damage to society? No, of course not - they keep it and spend it. How terribly convenient. Got to keep that bad money off the streets, eh?
The entire thing is inconceivably preposterous, and the fact that it ever got off the ground in the US is a sign that something is terribly, fundamentally broken in the judiciary at the deepest levels. I'm frankly shocked that anyone could consider any application of it reasonable.