Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

Aug 2018
been around
Very good news. These guys could just take your stuff and you have to sue to get it back! Unbelievably against the Constitution and any idea of fair due process. Having the property go to the people who decide to seize it is the literal definition of conflict of interest! It's a license to steal. This has always stuck in my craw.

Now, I'm not saying that if it's proven from illicit means stuff shouldn't be seized, because it should.

Also I'm concerned this will affect police, especially those who benefited most from this. Something should be done to figure this out and get it right with police getting what they need.
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Sep 2019
IMO, this is covered in the 5th Amendments "just compensation" clause. Because the whole Amendment was writting as a guideline as to the governments authority over suspected criminals.
For example: You get stopped for expired registration, no insurance and even no license. They take your car. BUT, you're car didn't commit the supposed crime. The person did. But they take your car, charge for the tow. And then get charged for storage. If you can't pay ALL of that, plus a bail bondsman to get you out, attorney's initial charge, then guess what.
The cops get to keep your car and auction it off. And of course, keep the money.

IMO, you should be able to either get someone to drive the vehicle (which decent cops will allow you to call someone and come pick it up. Or get your own tow truck. After all, it's the cops that have it towed and have it stored. Why should the suspect be forced to pay for all that?