A man was arrested about a few years ago when police found 865,000 hidden in his car. They arrested him saying the money was used for distribution of narcotics. The city kept the money and did who knows what with it. The man was never found guilty;as a matter of fact the case was dropped due to insufficient evidence as to acquisition of the money. With that said he never got his money back.... WHY? Is this not a violation of the Bill of Rights?
Amendment V
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
2007-03-30 14:51:32 · 7 answers · asked by Constitution Party for President 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's definitely unconstitutional, and many localities have dropped the practice, but it's called "civil forfeiture of assets", and they get around it by filing a civil suit against the property in question rather than a criminal case against the owner. In a criminal case you have the right to representation, in a civil case you must provide that for yourself, which is patently impossible if all of your assets have been seized. Catch-22, they get your stuff.
2007-03-30 14:58:29 · answer #1 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer to the question is definitely simple.
Forfeiture laws are civil in nature. That is you have to prove that the money was used for a criminal enterprise or was earned as a part of that criminal enterprise. The government's burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" or 50 plus percent sure.
Criminal laws require proof of each and every element of the offence charged beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. Say 100 percent sure.
The US Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture laws do not have to comport with the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because the goods or cash can be "guilty" even if the owner is not.
United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 210, 233 (1844)
Miller v. United States, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 268, 305 (1871)
2007-03-30 15:59:05 · answer #2 · answered by krollohare2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a little known fact that the police can impound evidence.
If a case is tried and completed, and the appeals are exhausted, then the evidence is distributed as the court sees fit. Illegal funds are confiscated and goods are returned to their owners if possible. Usually this requires a police report on the crime because the police will not search for most owners. They will keep the unclaimed goods for a while and auction them off. In the case of goods gained with illegal profits those goods will also be auctioned off eventually.
In the case of the man you heard about he was never found innocent of the crime so his money remains impounded until the case is finally tried and complete. This will probably never happen in the case you mentioned so eventually, when the statute of limitations expires the government will claim those funds. If the man tried to claim that money then he would have to explain how he got them and what they are for, and why he didn't declare it to the IRS. Since this will most likely land him in jail he will never try to claim the money so in the government will get it. The same will happen with the car that was carrying that drug money. This is part of the cost of being a criminal.
2007-03-30 15:06:52 · answer #3 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same thing happened to a woman who had just sold her home. She sued and the city was forced to return the money.
It is a form of stealing. In reality, is grand theft and fraud.
I think it is best for cities to turn over confiscated money to the Justice Department to prevent abuses done by some cities.
2007-03-30 14:56:27 · answer #4 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just because someone has an enormous amount of money hidden in their car does not make them guilty of anything or a crook. If he didn't come by that amount of money illegally - it wouldn't matter if he won it or not. My grandfather hated trusting his money with banks and hid it. Was he a criminal for doing so? I think not.
Besides I have figured that if I ever won a lottery with a substantial amount of money - I'm not so sure I put it in a bank either. Banks can be rather fickle with my money as it is.
2007-03-30 15:11:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you are carrying that much money hidden in your car you are guilty of something. I know there have been several cases in my state where the police let the person go as long as they deny the money is theirs and they leave it with the police.
This is just common sense stuff. Do you think the guy won that much cash in Vegas and if he actually did there would be a paper trail to prove it. If people are allowed to transport truckloads of cash then drug dealing just got a lot easier.
2007-03-30 15:01:53 · answer #6 · answered by Molliemae 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It is a violation and I agree with you. It could be they found him quilty or he pled to some lesser offense and they kept it as a fine--I don't know. Based on what you said, it's illegal and he should have sued.
2007-03-30 14:57:41 · answer #7 · answered by David M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋