Civil forteiture is one of the most egregious abuses of civil rights in America. As far as I'm concerned, having a court case entitled "United States v. One Mercedes-Benz Sd Vin Wdbcb20c6fa177831" is tantamount to Reductio Ad Absurdum. How can a piece of property be guilty of a crime or a tortious act?
"The crazy perversities of civil asset forfeiture."
New development:
"But allowing unelected private attorneys to oversee a county's forfeiture proceedings on a contingency basis is the worst option yet."
Plus the usual corruption, e.g. a judge changing his mind about a case after asking for $5K in forfeiture money for A/V equipment and getting turned down: "'Since then Judge Headley has had, well, I'll just say he's had a much different demeanor in forfeiture cases.'"
Balko notes that Indiana's constitution requires forfeiture money goes to schools ("'child' is the root password to the Constitution"), but of course they have dodges to get around that.
I think I agree with Radley Balko, but it's hard to tell, because in his crusade against civil asset forfeiture rules, he leaves out quite a bit of detail. To read him, you'd think that any police officer can take your car and stick it in an impound by executive fiat. Not so.
In Illinois, which he refers to in many of his blog posts on the topic, Balko insinuates that the state can hold your property for as many as six months without going to court (in other places, he says it can be over a year). That's not true. Property owners can file claims for their assets and get them back in less than 2 months after a court hearing (the "2 month" number is a statutory time limit).
It's only if both sides of a case stretch their time limits to the absolute maximum (the defendant by failing to file timely claims, and the prosecutor by dragging their feet) that the limit hits 180 days.
Furthermore, Balko's definition of "not having a day in court" apparently excludes "days in court for the specific purpose of getting your stuff back"; in other words, he appears to only be counting the actual criminal trial. But that's silly. Either way, it's still an impartial judge making the call, not the revenue-hungry police force.
To read my comment, you might think I'm fine with civil asset forfeiture. I don't think that I am. But I'm definitely not fine with sloppy arguments.
Depriving a person of access to his or her property without charging the person with a crime is a violation of due process. I shouldn't need to file a claim for the return of my property if I haven't been accused of wrongdoing. I also disagree with your argument that "property owners" (not "defedants" since the property is accused of the crime, not the person) simply need to file timely claims because hiring a lawyer to file a claim costs money that the property owner may not be able to afford if they have few assets and the seized property is something like an automobile, the loss of which causes them to also lose their job. The constitution exists to protect citizens from this sort of thing.
I don't understand how you can claim a lack of due process. The deprived is explicitly granted multiple hearings in court by a criminal judge. They in fact get more due process than a simple criminal defendant, because if they win any one of those hearings, they get their stuff back.
The rest of your comment, whatever. You're missing my point. I'm not taking on civil asset forfeiture, just sloppy reporting.
I think he's referring reasonably and ethically due in due process. These things start to sound like cliches, but both words are important here. Just because the corruption is legal doesn't make it ethical, or due.
For more info about the original topic, see this documentary about the legal system in the u.s. It shows cops driving around in SUVs and using guns and stuff they seized without warrant or arrest or conviction of crimes. It also clearly shows the conflict of interest when discussing the issue with some of the police officers.
This policy was created, according to the documentary, as an incentive for local law enforcement to team with the federal government in the drug war by rewarding them for investigating drugs crimes and seizing property in the effort.
> Each state has the right to be idiotic in it's own fashion.
Actually, no, they don't. We have these things called habeas corpus and due process and civil rights that are supposed to protect us from governments being idiotic - on any level.
Edit: Emphasis mine "[N]o Person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Franchises, Life, Liberty or Property but by due process of Law."
Well, after the passage of the 14th Amendment they were supposed to protect us from lower level governments, but that was quickly eviscerated by the Supremes (e.g. Slaughterhouse) and only bit by bit is being fixed.
While I agree with you, The Supreme Court doesn't, and we don't get to decide; they do. Until the Civil War amendments, those Constitutional protections didn't apply to the States. Since the Fourteenth Amendment and its Due Process clause, they clearly do. But the Supremes don't seem to recognize this. Until they do, the States have the right to be just this stupid.
