Justice Dept Reinstates "Equitable Sharing" - Property Seizure Program

[mugsy]

Full story is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ops-act-like-robbers/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_volokh

Summary: The Justice Dept just reinstated a Federal asset forfeiture program that was suspended in December of 2015 by departing AG Eric Holder. This Federal program allows police departments, even in States imposing restrictions on asset forfeiture programs, to evade State laws by using the Federal statute.

Fun Fact - US police departments now seize more property annually than all of the robbers in the US combined.

This is not an anti-police thread but it is a thread to allow discussion about certain practices of US law enforcement that may have corrosive long term effects.

 

[dennishoddy]

That entire program is riff with corruption. It should not be allowed.

 

[rbstern]

How U.S. courts looks the other way on the 5th Amendment for asset forfeiture laws, I simply do not understand.

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Admittedly, it is more wordy than "...shall not be infringed," which they also have trouble with.

 

[NikatKimber]

How U.S. courts looks the other way on the 5th Amendment for asset forfeiture laws, I simply do not understand.

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Admittedly, it is more wordy than "...shall not be infringed," which they also have trouble with.

What's interesting looking at that, and I hadn't thought about it before, is that when necessary, they added language to say that this right can be broken with "due process" or "just compensation". Unlike the 2A, that just says "shall not be infringed". In my mind, that should mean that no amount of "due process" should revoke the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Werewolf]

How U.S. courts looks the other way on the 5th Amendment for asset forfeiture laws, I simply do not understand.

What's interesting looking at that, and I hadn't thought about it before, is that when necessary, they added language to say that this right can be broken with "due process" or "just compensation". Unlike the 2A, that just says "shall not be infringed". In my mind, that should mean that no amount of "due process" should revoke the right to keep and bear arms.

Ding, DING! We have a winner.

But then again - lawyers don't apply the same meaning to words as us plebes. After all Clinton didn't have sex with that woman (even though she had his richard in her mouth).

That said: Lawyers are like women - can't live with 'em - can't live without 'em.