Gene363 wrote:But civil asset forfeiture (theft) is not based on due process. If the guy in your example actually is a drug dealer, there would be evidence, he would be tried, convicted, jailed and possibly finned by a court of law. If they just think he is a dealer and take his money, it's theft.
Worse yet, someone traveling to purchase a high-value item, e.g., a semi-truck carrying cash, gets stopped by the police, they use a drug dog that hits on the case, because most US cash has drug residue, the police take his money because they think he is in the drug business, there is no due process. The guy can attempt to get back the money, but he has to prove a negative. He has to prove the money is "innocent" and typically that takes legal fees, often more than the amount stolen by the police. Even when he does that, they may offer a partial return, knowing continuing the case will cost more legal fees.
It is theft and theft that incentivizes police agencies to commit theft.
Guy is traveling in his Ferrari at 90mph down I-95. Cops pull him over and ask him why he is speeding and whether he has any dangerous weapons or drugs (suspected high level drug dealer) in the car. He says "No." Cops ask him if they can search his car. Stupidly, he says yes (thinking his affirmative answer will disway them). There is a briefcase in the back of the car or trunk. They ask him what is inside of it. He denies it is even his. So, they open it and find $2 million. They seize it and write him a ticket for speeding and send him on his way, but keep the briefcase full of cash. He goes to his lawyer the next day to get the cash back, but can't document it came from lawful means. Court rules he has no civil law right to the money. True case I was involved in 30+ years ago in Ft. Lauderdale.
Another seizure case I was involved in and have written about here in the past about is the guy with the cash hidden behind the front seat of his pickup and who gets pulled over for speeding. Cops see cash hidden behind his front seat and ask him what it is all doing there. His answer was B.S. We gathered affidavits to "prove" all the cash came from like 10 different out-of-state relatives, all of whom loaned him tens of thousands in cash (from their secret stashes at home rather than from a bank) to buy a semi-tractor in Miami. Despite, IMO being absolute B.S., he gets his money back and seizing agency/state had to pay his legal fees.
Both cases were bul**** clients with false stories.
Nevertheless, there is too much incentive for seizing agencies to go way overboard IMO, due to the incentive of keeping whatever has been seized. Most, like >75% should go directly to the state or federal budgets so that no one benefits enough to make it worthwhile to violating rights and commit wrongful seizures. Also, there should be a one way street as to legal fees. You win your asset back, the other side has to pay your legal fees. Not ideal. Not perfect. Just a bit better rule than what we have in place now. Loser pays.
Now if you want to discuss pretextual (illegal stops) and seizure that is another story...
