One law enforcement agent told me he never uses the criminal forfeiture process because the civil asset forfeiture process is much easier. You don’t have to convict the owner of a crime.
How can government do that, you ask? Well, to get around constitutional issues, lawmakers at both the state and federal level have created a dual system whereby the assets of an individual are named in a case, not the individual. Our state also has a low threshold to show that the property may have been used in illegal activity. Moreover, the owner of the seized property is presumed guilty until he or she can prove their innocence in obtaining the property legitimately. Many owners do not even try to recover their assets because the cost of obtaining legal representation may exceed the value of the confiscated property.
If government officials were omniscient and could never make mistakes, this would not be a problem. One official could be lawgiver, king and judge. Criminals could be stopped immediately and efficiently, and no innocent citizens would be punished.
But like citizens, government officials are not angels, so our constitution limits their power and separates it. It requires that they pursue justice justly, knowing that their power can, wittingly or unwittingly, treat innocent people like criminals.
Our constitutional restraints on government power are like fences; they keep the honest people honest. Where our fences of presumed innocence and due process have been torn down, we should rebuild them.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Simpson on civil forfeiture: Where fences of presumed innocence and due process have been torn down, we should rebuild them
State Rep. David Simpson had a column in the Dallas News this week (Dec. 22) decrying civil asset forfeiture. His article concluded:
What an idiot. There are all sorts of circumstances where the government can easily take your property. Eminent domain comes to mind. Tax sales by either the local or federal government. Given our proximity to the border and the amount of drugs (and humans, for that matter) being smuggled across, it's inconceivable that we're even having this discussion. If Simpson is of a mind to coddle criminals, why doesn't he just come right out and say so? RINO!
ReplyDeleteSimpson is a Tea Party darling and lots of conservatives agree with him on this, from the Heritage Foundation to the Texas Public Policy Foundation to the guy who led eminent domain reform in Texas. So who's the RINO? Seems like you're the one off the reservation.
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:02 supports theft under color of law until he's the sucker tagged by the footpads w/badges. Of course he probably enjoys a good tsa grope a dope too, as he/she has nada to hide.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how one comes down on the the merits of this issue, you have to give Rep. Simpson credit for having the uncommon courage to state his position in this most public way. It's gratifying to see a legislator pursue justice instead of seeking cheap political advantage. Hopefully he'll be rewarded politically when the time comes.
ReplyDeleteRep. Simpson has brought up an issue that deserves serious discussion. Now if there are only enough of his colleagues willing to participate on the same level.
Protective orders bases on allegations of family violence, stalking or sexual assault are handled as Civil cases for the same reason... the accused has fewer rights and the state has a lower standard of proof.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the good Rep. Simpson wants to raise the burden of proof for protective orders in family violence cases? There are certainly any number of negative collateral consequences that flow from being the subject of a protective order; not the least of which is the prohibition on possessing a firearm. Probably wouldn't hurt to sacrifice a few victims for the cause of libertarianism, would it? What a nut job!
ReplyDeleteSaid Simpson....One law enforcement agent told me he never uses the criminal forfeiture process because the civil asset forfeiture process is much easier. You don’t have to convict the owner of a crime.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the criminal forfeiture process? I'm only aware of one process and it's civil in nature.
Criminal forfeiture requires that the defendant actually be convicted to lose the property, which is a much higher standard. Civil forfeiture only requires a cop who wants your stuff, preferably of low enough value to make it not worth fighting (ie, you won't spend $5000 to recover $3000)
ReplyDelete"State Rep. David Simpson... 'One law enforcement agent told me he never uses the criminal forfeiture process because the civil asset forfeiture process is much easier. You don’t have to convict the owner of a crime'".
ReplyDeleteAnd the public doesn't have to drop to their knees, sob, pray, create memorials, attend funerals and watch wall-to-wall MSM coverage of every cop that gets shot either.
When so-called "good cops" protect and cover-up for bad cops, they aren't good cops anymore.
I'm sure there are plenty of good cops out there but they can't speak out without fear of retaliation in the form of job loss, pension loss, lousy assignments, being passed over for promotion, harassment, shunning or even, in some cases, death.
well 8:50 your right I would never spend $5k to recover 3k.
ReplyDeleteI would have no problem spending $2 bucks for the 9mm bullet I would happy put though the empty head of any thief pulling this shit.
You might steal it. But you wound NEVER enjoy it.
And no I would not give a shit what so-called job or costume you have on at the time. Act like a thief I WILL treat you like any cop that caught you in the act who didn't know what you were would.
In other words I would happy blow your ass away.