Another victory against asset forfeiture!

[vvvvvvv]

The Institute for Justice helped Motel Caswell achieve a very important victory in the battle against asset forfeiture abuse. But keep in mind that had they not had the resources to keep the case alive long enough to attract IJ's attention so that IJ could represent them pro bono, its doubtful they would have succeeded. It takes a lot of resources to fight this kind of stuff, so most property owners end up walking away.


Here's the gist: a federal agent has a specific task to identify high-value properties particularly vulnerable to asset forfeiture. The Caswells own the motel outright, and its estimated to be worth well over $1M. Nearing retirement, the owners seem to be a perfect target as they appear unlikely to fight given their age and apparent lack of resources. The Government builds their case around 15 incidents spanning more than a decade involving drug abusers or traffickers staying at the hotel at least one night without the knowledge or involvement of the motel owners or employees of the tenants' business. The Government then seizes the motel as being a property having been used for illegal purposes.


Oversimplified analogy: This would be akin to the county seizing your farm because a group of teens or college students found it to be a great party spot for the underage consumption of alcoholic beverages and illegal consumption of marijuana without your knowledge or consent provided that you took reasonable steps to secure the property.

Decision

Video for a background:

 

[WTJ]

Ya know, some of the crap the .gov pulls these days is just unreal. I saw the FBI Director say he wasn't sure if the current Administration couldn't just kill American citizens in CONUS without due process. 'Course, that wouldn't be a first for those guys either.

 

[Glocktogo]

Ya know, some of the crap the .gov pulls these days is just unreal. I saw the FBI Director say he wasn't sure if the current Administration couldn't just kill American citizens in CONUS without due process. 'Course, that wouldn't be a first for those guys either.

I do believe that Lon Horiuchi has proven this to be correct.

 

[mhphoto]

That's sickening.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I do believe that Lon Horiuchi has proven this to be correct.

For those wondering... Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F. 3d 359 (9th Cir. 2001) - upheld the immunity of federal officers acting in the course of their duties under the Supremacy Clause

 

[10Seconds]

Its sickening that this is what our government has been allowed to become. And there are probably 100 or more other cases like this where people couldnt fight it and just had the government steal from them.

And this kind of thing should spark outrage in the media but this is the first I have heard of it.

 

[10Seconds]

For those wondering... Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F. 3d 359 (9th Cir. 2001) - upheld the immunity of federal officers acting in the course of their duties under the Supremacy Clause

So we are back to the "i was just following orders" excuse. Except now it actually works. I guess that will serve them well when the new interment camps are set up.

 

[henschman]

I am glad to hear of the outcome of the case. Civil forfeiture is such a crock.

 

[SoonerBorn]

I can't think of a many things scarier than this....

 

[vvvvvvv]

Its sickening that this is what our government has been allowed to become. And there are probably 100 or more other cases like this where people couldnt fight it and just had the government steal from them.

And this kind of thing should spark outrage in the media but this is the first I have heard of it.

There are thousands more cases like this. Civil forfeiture is abused more often on the side of the road.

Take, for example, interdiction teams. A large chunk of many agencies budgets rely on the fruits (either primary or secondary) of civil forfeiture. Its well documented in Tennessee that 10x more interdiction stops are performed on the money side of I40 than on the drug side. There's even ample documentation of many traffic stops be performed under false pretenses.

All one has to do to be a victim of civil forfeiture is be accused of a crime. No criminal charges even need to be filed. And its up to the victim to prove their innocence to regain their property.