The 4th Amendment declares that citizens have a right to "their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and that no warrants may be issued without a statement of probable cause "particularly describing…things to be seized."
The 5th Amendment says the accused criminals shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The 6th Amendment ensures that people accused of crimes must be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,"
The 8th Amendment forbids the government to impose "excessive fines" or "cruel and unusual punishments."
Opponents of the change have little more than 'the ends justify the means' as a counter argument.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
Note that the government can admit the person used to own it. Under https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981, property used in certain crimes belongs to the government, and so the government takes it. It's then the person's job to prove it was not involved in a crime. Courts have ruled this doesn't violate anyone's rights.
(I probably have some of this wrong, IANAL, but I gave sources so you can look those up.)
Presumably, if I can prove I earned/bought something, and am not convicted of a crime, turf the government seizure is wrongful and I should get restitution, but from what I read, that doesn't work?
And if you say "no" to that then where exactly do you draw the line in between law enforcement taking obviously stolen property and law enforcement taking personal property?
I don't ask this question rhetorically, I ask it because I'm honestly not sure.
Under the 5th, due process basically means you have a right to a hearing where you can present evidence, examine witnesses, have counsel if you desire, etc and have the reasoning for the decision written down. It doesn't require that the rules being applied be fair.
Under the 6th, nobody is being accused of a crime, otherwise it'd be a criminal forfeiture.
Under the 8th, civil forfeitures aren't fines or punishments.
The courts are far too deferential to the government. Unfortunately, presidents tend to appoint and the senate tends to confirm judges who will ignore all but the most egregious violations of the constitution when given laughable but marginally plausible arguments as to why the constitution is not in fact being violated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
It is. But you assume that laws cannot violate the constitution. They can and they do constantly, all the time. The constitution doesn't mean shit (I wanted to add "anymore", but from reading history, I'm not convinced it ever meant shit). That's just reality. It only means something when people in power want it to mean something. And yes, it's incredibly ironic that this is the exact system we had a revolution to get away from. Maybe not so much when you consider that a revolution is a 360 degree rotation that ends up in the exact same place. In that case, it probably isn't ironic that such programs had a huge resurgence under King George II (2000-2008), although had he been the third, the irony and historical allusion would have been even better.
As far as justice and rule by law in the US, I think it's time for us to accept reality, that the US "justice" system is beyond broken and unfixable. This simply isn't justice and most of what the system deals with is not either: it's the opposite. If we keep lying to ourselves that this is justice, we'll never be able to stop this horrific system that ruins millions of lives and creates such a terrified, divided society. Once you understand that there are no laws and no Constitution protecting you, that the gang in blue can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it up to and including murder, shit gets a lot scarier. And no, you don't have to be a minority to see this reality.
I don't know if that's the case. It seems to me that one plausible reading of the history of the United States is that the rich colonists ("founding fathers") wanted to make sure they had all the power they wanted over the new government.
This is what makes libertarianism a cruel joke: even if it made sense, it would be subverted immediately by powerful or moneyed interests.
The constitution means nothing if the courts or executive won't enforce it.
Not quite. The law means what the people with actual power say it means. I find it odd that people express surprise when something happens that seems to violate some text written on a piece of paper. It's people with guns versus a text document. Not really a fair match, and not a surprising outcome.
> This is what makes libertarianism a cruel joke: even if it made sense, it would be subverted immediately by powerful or moneyed interests.
Not sure what that has to do with libertarianism specifically. Seems like "democracy" or even just "government" fits better in that sentence.
Re the 5th, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527393711501700... seems to say it does apply, but only for "real" property (land).
https://www.pennlawreview.com/print/163-U-Pa-L-Rev-867.pdf seems to have a good summary of the legal aspects here.
"We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing. ... Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible." Doesn't seem like they wanted it closed to me.
How is this not just positive spin on a doj money grab?
While the _best_ case scenario would be the entire notion of any asset sharing program be made outright illegal [0] because it has been shown to be corrupt, etc, etc - simply having it shut down is a good thing even if not for "good reasons" because at the very minimum, it means that if and when the program is reinstated, it will force conversation of the issue, something that has gone largely un-discussed in the American political landscape.
[0]: I personally would argue it should be illegal regardless of conviction, otherwise it incentivizes police forces and DAs to only go after high payout crimes
I'm saying it was never cancelled
We'll see what happens when the DOJ realizes how much of that $1.2B was driven by state incentives, and their dirty golden goose stops laying eggs
Current HN title is more accurate.
Edit: The AP appears to frame the story more accurately: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-p.... Should we use this instead? It's rather short.
I wonder if the person whose money was "forfeited" finds the sharing to be equitable.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Let+down+easy
In the case of civil asset forfeiture, central to the Supreme Court's upholding of those laws was the fact that laws providing for civil forfeiture of contraband property were passed by the First Congress.
9 & 10?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...
We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the constitution would be unmaintainable.
Their budget was cut, so they said "we need ours, pony up."
Likely, police forces which relied on federal statute to get 80% of the seized resources will now resort to state statute to maximize what they can take from seized assets.
Yes, it's still a problem but it's much more manageable now.
It will be great news if this widespread official larceny is actually reduced, but that's yet to be seen.
5. That’s crazy!!! This can’t happen in my state. It might be crazy, but civil asset forfeiture happens in every state in the union. Even if the state has laws that limit it, state and local law enforcement authorities can still seize property by partnering with federal law enforcement officials in a system called “equitable sharing,” and payouts to state and local agencies have increased nearly 250% over a 12-year period.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset...
"the practice has exploded in recent years, prompting concern that, in some cases, police are motivated more by profits and less by justice."
In some cases?
"The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) said in a statement that "this decision is detrimental to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.""
Not being able to rape and pillage their communities makes serving their communities harder.
Crime has dropped dramatically since the peak in the mid-1990's. But that massive build-up of the justice system has persisted, and today the incarceration rate dramatically exceeds the crime rate. As the people who forget that New York City in the 1990's used to be Gotham City, and now only remember it as Disney Land, the political slur of "soft on crime" is going to lose some of its bite. We are seeing Obama talk about criminal justice reforms that say Bill Clinton in the 1990's never would have been able to talk about. I remember growing up in the 1990's, and all the advertisements and school assemblies about drugs--a prevailing attitude that can only be described as "hysterical." Remember Clinton having to say "I smoked but never inhaled?" Today, we're seeing legalization of marijuana all over the country. We're seeing a generation of future voters that will grow up hearing about Ferguson and Freddie Gray instead of how people high on crack cocaine are going around raping women in the inner city. That's going to change what kind of police conduct voters are willing to tolerate.
Took me three tries to read "defunds" properly, not as "defends".
vs.
"We're keeping the money, LoL"
