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.
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.