5 thoughts on “Civil Asset Forfeiture”

1. Asset forfeiture enables the police to control their own budget depending on the nature of their policing. Shockingly, they choose to increase their budget as much as possible by pursuing drug crimes to the detriment of other policing. It also helps contribute to the militarization of American police because busting drug houses becomes not only an exciting, adrenaline fueled adventure it become highly lucrative to the department as well.

2. The New Yorker had a great piece on civil forfeiture last year (and it’s available online while the New Yorker paywall is on summer vacation). I’m glad Paul is trying to do something about it.

3. I was stunned when the Supreme Court upheld the practice. It’s so clearly contrary to the Constitution and any concept of due process.

4. This isn’t about drugs; it’s about theft by those that are supposed to be protecting these citizens.

   law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner.

   Police are going after multimillion dollar assets of private citizens by cross checking public records with minor drug arrests on or near those properties listed by most valuable. No charge or conviction is intended since no crime by the property owner is involved. They simply want to steal from those that have something of value. It’s pure corruption.

   1. “This isn’t about drugs; it’s about theft by those that are supposed to be protecting these citizens.”
      Bingo. Drug enforcement is a common context and excuse presented for this abuse, but not the root problem.

      As I see it the drug problem most in need of enforcement doesn’t need violation of due process.

Comments are closed.