One of every three state civil asset forfeiture seizures happen in this county, pop. 17,692. Proponents say it combats the drug trade and saves taxpayer money. Critics say it’s highway robbery.
It IS 4th amendment violation, period. It just that we’re suffering from the repercussion of the fundamental problem with Common Law (USA and UK) vs Civil Law (Rest of Europe except UK.)
Reference on this. And scroll down and you’ll see a row saying "Constitution: Always (For Civil Law) and Not Always (For Common Law.)
In a court of law, they make it a legal-game-scenario where constitutional rights aren’t automatically applied to you and you have to explicitly invoked it at the right time. That kind of crap is asinine and why I think we need an overhaul politically.
I’ve never understood how civil asset forfeiture is constitutional. It seems like a 4th amendment violation.
Can someone point me to the judicial decisions that lead to this being legal?
It IS 4th amendment violation, period. It just that we’re suffering from the repercussion of the fundamental problem with Common Law (USA and UK) vs Civil Law (Rest of Europe except UK.)
Reference on this. And scroll down and you’ll see a row saying "Constitution: Always (For Civil Law) and Not Always (For Common Law.)
In a court of law, they make it a legal-game-scenario where constitutional rights aren’t automatically applied to you and you have to explicitly invoked it at the right time. That kind of crap is asinine and why I think we need an overhaul politically.
It is a 4th amendment violation, but some shit judge ruled otherwise at some point so they get to pretend it isn’t.
Because it usually happens to “those” people.