Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
From what I gathered from this article, this isn't gone at all, it's just on hold, and most states can do it, they just don't get to keep as much of what they steal from you.

So now instead of them getting to keep 80% of the stuff they stole from you and the rest going to the government, they'll get to keep less.

At least now I know to watch out for this if I ever get pulled over. I travel a lot and an out of state plate may as well be a giant "kick me" sign sometimes. It's pretty bad when you have to consider lying to the cops about things just so they won't rob you blind even when you haven't done anything wrong.

Don't lie, that can get you in trouble all on its own. Carry debit cards instead of cash if you can. At least they can't force you to an ATM to drain your savings account.

Uh, actually, they can seize your bank assets. This is why this law has been a travesty from the day it was enacted. It has been used, from the get-go, to seize assets and property from people who were not even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
From what I gathered from this article, this isn't gone at all, it's just on hold, and most states can do it, they just don't get to keep as much of what they steal from you.

So now instead of them getting to keep 80% of the stuff they stole from you and the rest going to the government, they'll get to keep less.

At least now I know to watch out for this if I ever get pulled over. I travel a lot and an out of state plate may as well be a giant "kick me" sign sometimes. It's pretty bad when you have to consider lying to the cops about things just so they won't rob you blind even when you haven't done anything wrong.

Don't lie, that can get you in trouble all on its own. Carry debit cards instead of cash if you can. At least they can't force you to an ATM to drain your savings account.

Uh, actually, they can seize your bank assets. This is why this law has been a travesty from the day it was enacted. It has been used, from the get-go, to seize assets and property from people who were not even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

We were talking about traffic stops in this context, Psienesis. Traffic cops can't make you empty your bank account. They can take your stash if they find it in your car, however.

I am slightly surprised that more companies have not been "arrested" under this law. Given companies are actually people. Or something equally stupid...

Criminals in Uniform.

This is the sort of thing that should only be carried out with Court approval, after a successful prosecution.

 Ouze wrote:
It's a good start, but it doesn't go far enough. There should be no scenario in any jurisdiction in which even discussion of asset forfeiture happens prior to a conviction, if then.

This.

Isn't it unconstitutional? I'd say confiscating someone's home because you suspect their son of drug dealing but cannot prove it falls under cruel and unusual punishment. And a gross violation of due process.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Isn't it unconstitutional? I'd say confiscating someone's home because you suspect their son of drug dealing but cannot prove it falls under cruel and unusual punishment. And a gross violation of due process.

The logic as I understand it is that you don't bring charges against the person, you bring charges against the property Under the Constitution, property is not given any explicit rights, i.e. the Government can charge $1000 in petty cash with being involved in criminal activity and there's nothing in the Constitution that protects the rights of petty cash.

If this sounds slowed, good because it is. Something like a bastardized round about way to get around those pesky 'civil liberties,' completely undermines the spirit of the Constitution, and is another grand display of idiocy resulting from the Drug War

^Which violates the Constitution, if only in spirit.

I would love to see this challenged in the Supreme Court.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
^Which violates the Constitution, if only in spirit.

I would love to see this challenged in the Supreme Court.

As I understand it has been, and the court (SCOTUS) has upheld the law several times (you may feel sadder now).

So your Supreme Court is officially a laughing stock.

Sort of? It all depends on who is sitting on the Court at the time when a decision is made. The SC Justices are not elected positions, and serve for life once appointed. It also doesn't require unanimous agreement for the SC to "decide" something. A 5-4 vote is just as "law" as a 9-0 vote.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So your Supreme Court is officially a laughing stock.

Nothing says laughing stock like having nine people, chosen through partisan politics and given lifetime appointments, voting up or down on whether a given civil right still exists. Until they change their minds thirty or forty years later.

Yay, us.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So your Supreme Court is officially a laughing stock.

My understanding is that, as far as legal logic goes, there's very little the court can do about the issue without legislating from the bench (which the Supreme Court has always been deftly afraid of doing). 'Violates the spirit of' is a very empty legal argument, even if in any other context it makes complete sense.