Asset Forfeiture - When Vox says it out of hand

"Charles Clarke entered the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport last February eager to go back to his mother after a months-long visit with relatives. But instead of a quick, easy trip home to Orlando, Clarke lost his life savings — $11,000 in cash — to law enforcement officials who never even proved he committed a crime.

Clarke, a 24-year-old college student, said losing that $11,000 was "devastating." He's been forced to live with his mom, trumping his plans to move closer to school. He's fallen back on other family for financial support. And he had to take out loans for school instead of paying for it up front — for which he's still in debt. "It's been a struggle for me," Clarke, who's now fighting in court to get his money back, said.

But law enforcement officials may have been working within the confines of the law when they took Clarke's money. Under federal and state laws that allow what's called "civil forfeiture," law enforcement officers can seize someone's property without proving the person was guilty of a crime; they just need probable cause to believe the assets are being used as part of criminal activity, typically drug trafficking. Police can then absorb the value of this property — be it cash, cars, guns, or something else — as profit: either through state programs, or under a federal program known as Equitable Sharing that lets local and state police get up to 80 percent of the value of what they seize as money for their departments."

I'm sorry but the burden of proof should be on the Cops taking the money or other item, NOT the person who it was seized from.

Law Enforcement should have to PROVE beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and that is the problem. The burden of proof is set so low, the cops could take anything they want, and there are no repercussions. They don't have to pay for a lawyer to fight. The person the money or items were taken from has to.

I have a novel new idea, if the money or item is found NOT to be from criminal activities, the Police Department has to pay the person who they seized it from, legal fees, ALL of their Fees. And it comes out of their budget, not from their City or County or State's budget. Their DEPARTMENT BUDGET. And the individual officer also have to pay a percentage out of their own pocket as well.

All it would take would be one judge to say that the taking was wrong and the department and any officer involved, would have to pay the legal fees of the person who the stuff was seized from. Also any Prosecutor or DA involved would also have to pay personally. I bet if that precedent was set, many of these GIGO seizures would stop very quickly.


H/t Kenny