What are some of the problems with the use of civil asset forfeiture in drug enforcement?

Answer 1

Jesus, where to begin. Drug laws are bogus to begin with, but thats a whole other topic. Civil forfeiture is in direct violation of the 4th and 5th amendments since it takes a persons belongings on suspicion alone. It does an end-run aroud due process and basically convicts a person before a trial. If I'm caught with a pound of weed in my roommates truck, they can take the truck. I haven't been convicted, the trucks not mine, and, being an inanimate object, commited no crime on its own. How is that legal to confiscate? I commited the crime and should be tried, but a truck that does not belong to me should not be taken, and if it is, only after I have been convicted. Its gestapo tactics and illegal as hell, but if you ARE the law, i guess you can do whatever you want in the name of order.

Read your constitution, 4 and 5. Plus, why stop there? Caught with a pound of weed? Your parents house now belongs to the state. Thats a pretty good deterrent. You allow for unchecked power when you do that, plus our founding documents do not allow it, but screw it, as long as it deters crime.

Answer 2

TH is right. It completely ignores "innocent until proven guilty". His analogy is a good one as well.

Years ago, when I was once MUCH better off financially, I used to have literally tens of thousands of dollars on me in cash while I was doing business during the day (it was a completely legitimate enterprize that I worked very hard at). Today, the posession of that much cash is considered probable cause and they will seize the money if a cop pulls me over and searches my vehicle (legally or illegally, it doesn't matter... they will lie just to make the case).

I once had a cop stick $1,000 (of MY money!) in his pocket with a smirk. When I tried to get his boss involved, she came out and took ANOTHER $1,500 and told me that having that much cash made me look like a drug dealer and that they had probable cause to seize it all, freeze my bank accounts, seize my car and throw me in jail for trafficing.

I learned a couple of really valuable lessons that day: 1) cops are people too... and therefor cannot be trusted. They think that they are somehow better than us. News Flash! Nobody who can be bought off for a measly $1,000 or $1,500 is better than me. 2) The law and justice have NOTHING to do with each other. Just because you are innocent doesn't mean that you have nothing to fear from the police. They will lie, fabricate and plant evidence, and beat you down just to prove how big, bad, and superior they are. Then they will charge YOU with assaulting a police officer when it was them doing the punching.

I now try hard to stay under the radar. I haven't gotten a traffic ticket since that night. But whenever I see a cop drive by, I think to myself, "oh look, a thief with a badge".

Answer 3

Cops pocket nothing, as was mentioned by another poster. That's bull, and if you say its not, then I say it would happen if forfeiture laws were in place or not. A bad cop is gonna be a bad cop.

How about that guy losing his room mate's truck when he gets popped with a pound a weed? Whats wrong with that? It meets one of the goals of society's reasons for laws. Prevention. Society wants to prevent you from committing crime. Thinking about losing you're stuff and the stuff of your friend's and family dissuades alot of people from crime.

Against his rights? His freedoms? You lose those rights when you make the choice to buck society's norms and commit acts against it. Your rights are extremely restricted if not stripped altogether. Forever, if the crime is serious enough.

So why is forfeiture so bad?

Answer 4

a lot of time curruption. money from the prophits gets sent back to the departments making the bust. certain things could be pocketed by officers like plasma tvs cd players ipods. gives officers more reasons to make unecicary busts and plant evidence.

Answer 5

You will find some relevant info here:
http://leap.cc