Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment

[Tanis143]

The problem with your conclusion is that the assets that are seized are being done so without a court of law requiring them to be seized when you talk about incentives.
If they bust a crime ring, they should have to prove the assets actually came from the crime, and they don't currently have to do that.
The big house and cars could have came from an inheritance but they disregard that. It's just seized.
Then the person that has been adjudicated guilty before any trial loses their constitutional right that protects one from that very thing.
Then they have to sue the state to gain their property back which may not even come close to what the trial costs and attorney costs may come to, so most just say fawk it, which is what Civil Forfeiture is all about.

dennis, the assets dont have to be from the crime (I.E. bought with profits generated by the crime), they are all assets that were associated with the crime. That house was used to store drugs which were sold from the house. That car was used to transport the drugs to the house. See how that works? And again, you are confusing seizure of evidence to civil forfeiture. The permanent seizure of cash under civil forfeiture to me should be outlawed. As I said though all items that were seized as evidence that is tied to a crime should be forfeited only after a guilty verdict. No guilty verdict, all assets are returned.

 

[CHenry]

Another reason to decriminalize drugs. Problem solved.