Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

SCOTUS hopefully moving closer to ruling against civil forfeiture
Quote | Reply
Looks like SCOTUS's ruling on one case will hopefully induce changes regarding civil forfeiture. It is about time. I would love to see PD's have to repay stolen assets as well as pay interest and court costs.

Article here


Supreme Court Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent, Says States Cannot Keep Money From The Innocent

With so many constitutional rights under siege, it’s welcome news when one of them is defended. Reaffirming the presumption of innocence, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law last month that forced criminal defendants to prove their innocence when they wanted defendants’ convictions were already overturned. As the court explained, “Absent those convictions, Colorado would have no legal right to exact and retain petitioners’ funds.” Not only is this decision a win for due process, the court’s ruling in Nelson v. Colorado could have major ramifications for government shakedown schemes nationwide.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS hopefully moving closer to ruling against civil forfeiture [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The whole civil forfeiture thing is such bullshit. I was watching one of those game warden shows and they nabbed some guy for buying illegally harvested shrimp and selling it to some restaurant. He had a brand new looking big ol' F250 or something. They were threatening to take his truck for having $200 of illegal shrimp.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS hopefully moving closer to ruling against civil forfeiture [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
The whole civil forfeiture thing is such bullshit.

+1. Years ago I had a friend get caught up in all of that. He had just quit his job, cashed out his retirement plan, and was trying to decide what to do next with his life. He was trying to live cheap, and was offered free rent in exchange for watering an MJ indoor grow operation while the owner went to Mexico for the winter.

A couple weeks later the Feds raided the place and arrested him. They realized pretty quickly that he was a small fish, and let him out on bail. He ended up getting probation for some minor criminal charges. But it took him two years to get his computer and other possessions back and have his bank accounts unfrozen.

Bad decisions on his part to be sure, but the punishment was out of all proportion to the crime, and there was no due process.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS hopefully moving closer to ruling against civil forfeiture [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank god. It's insane that PDs have used civil asset forfeiture to raid innocent pockets as a means of making up for budget cuts. Cutting that incentive would be a win for liberty.


rick_pcfl wrote:
Looks like SCOTUS's ruling on one case will hopefully induce changes regarding civil forfeiture. It is about time. I would love to see PD's have to repay stolen assets as well as pay interest and court costs.

Article here


Supreme Court Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent, Says States Cannot Keep Money From The Innocent

With so many constitutional rights under siege, it’s welcome news when one of them is defended. Reaffirming the presumption of innocence, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law last month that forced criminal defendants to prove their innocence when they wanted defendants’ convictions were already overturned. As the court explained, “Absent those convictions, Colorado would have no legal right to exact and retain petitioners’ funds.” Not only is this decision a win for due process, the court’s ruling in Nelson v. Colorado could have major ramifications for government shakedown schemes nationwide.
Last edited by: MidwestRoadie: May 3, 17 5:03
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS hopefully moving closer to ruling against civil forfeiture [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Ontario if you are caught fishing without a licence the Conservation officer can confiscate any of your equipment that aided you in your fishing. They sometimes impound cars because, well you drove your boat to the lake so your car assisted in the fishing.

And yes, it's pure bullshit.

Having said that... I always have my licence with me and won't ever get caught up in this bullshit.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS hopefully moving closer to ruling against civil forfeiture [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
In Ontario if you are caught fishing without a licence the Conservation officer can confiscate any of your equipment that aided you in your fishing. They sometimes impound cars because, well you drove your boat to the lake so your car assisted in the fishing.

And yes, it's pure bullshit.

Having said that... I always have my licence with me and won't ever get caught up in this bullshit.

I think all of this started so that they could take the ill gotten gains of drug dealers and such but it's mushroomed into a cash grab for law enforcement organizations. The punishment should fit the crime, and clearly there are cases where it doesn't. Really surprised it's been allowed to go on for as long as it has.
Quote Reply