Jump to content

AL gets an "F" for its civil asset forfeiture laws


MDM4AU

Recommended Posts





conviction should be required to take somebody's property. Even then, the officers should have probable cause that the property is connected to the crime. But, when there is money to be made, and some dumb bloke is toting it, who said there is anything wrong with "policing for profits?" Amirite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

conviction should be required to take somebody's property. Even then, the officers should have probable cause that the property is connected to the crime. But, when there is money to be made, and some dumb bloke is toting it, who said there is anything wrong with "policing for profits?" Amirite?

First I'll say I do not agree with CAF laws.

My understanding is that a conviction is not needed because it is civil not criminal. A civil case is a judgement not a conviction. Remember OJ was innocent in his criminal case but lost the judgement in his civil case. Also, I think they just have to show there may have been criminal intent to seize the asset.

These laws were designed for the well funded Mob, because they could afford the best lawyers with their illegal fortunes. As you can see, this unchecked power is being abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very poorly thought out law designed to fight crimes that were themselves created by government action. And it has virtually no defenders today. So why is it so hard to get rid of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...