How is asset forfeiture constitutional?

Here in New Mexico the Supreme Court said just that, so now the State files a notification of intent to seize assets and they do the whole thing at the sentencing phase. Otherwise, our Supreme Court has ruled that it violates double jeopardy and they cannot prosecute you if they have already seized your property. Something like 40 convictions were overturned. Serves the war on drugs fuckers right.
 
What has the federal supreme court said about it? I know they have a habit of bending over and taking it in the ass whenever it comes to civil liberties, but I'd at least like to know their reasoning.
 
United States v. Ursery ruled that civil forfeiture was remedial and not punative, cause none of them has ever had their house seized, and therefore, double jeopardy is not violated. The feds will do ANYTHING to make sure that the war on drugs stays on the rails and runs rampant over anyone in its way.
 
I've noticed an increasing tendency in modern courts to refer to what is clearly a punishment as a "regulation", and not really "punishments", in order to avoid double jeopardy, ex post facto, and all the other constitutional protections that were written into the constitution. It's becoming pretty sad.

Pretty soon prison is probably going to be referred to as a regulation.
 
Watermark said:
I've noticed an increasing tendency in modern courts to refer to what is clearly a punishment as a "regulation", and not really "punishments", in order to avoid double jeopardy, ex post facto, and all the other constitutional protections that were written into the constitution. It's becoming pretty sad.

I mean, I guess prison is just a regulation designed to keep prisoners away from society, and therefore the government should be able to prosecute people over and over again for the same offense (ULTRA high conviction rates!!!!)
Click to expand...
WM I want you to very quickly remove this post from the board and NEVER say it again. Some US Attorney is going to see it and think it is a great idea.
 
A lot of these asset forfeitures take all of a persons property. This forces the person to either take a plea bargain or use a state appointed attorney. That's just not right. It's like an automatic conviction for the state either way. They could use it against US and he'd be forced to cave.
 
Let's not forget that in 80% of all asset forfeitures there is no cause and the property is eventually returned. It just takes legal costs of about 20,000 dollars to do so - so the state knows that if it seizes anything of a value of less than 20,000 dollars, it has gotten a free 20K.
 
Water i am not defending it. Besides being a kangaroo court proceding, it tends to deprive the family members of the accused of their home, their cars and their bank accounts and there is not much in the way of proving a nexus to the drug activity.
 
Socrtease said:
Water i am not defending it. Besides being a kangaroo court proceding, it tends to deprive the family members of the accused of their home, their cars and their bank accounts and there is not much in the way of proving a nexus to the drug activity.
Click to expand...

Did I say you were defending it? LOL. That would be ridiculous from your posts on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it's another bitch technique used by the federal authorities.

One of many reasons that the bureaucracy doesn't want to stop the Drug War.
 
Watermark said:
Wha?

Why'd you make up that quote Beefy?
Click to expand...

What quote? uscitispam was suggesting that it is wrong to seize assets without a conviction.

And did you notice how I did a Dano and changed uscitizens name and how funny that is? LOL at me!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top