Law Rare and welcome judgement: Couple awared $1 million dollars in Civil Asset Forfeiture case

[MicroBrew]

As this lawyer says rarely do you find anyone being awared damages in Civil Asset Forfeiture case. Due to government just giving the money/possessions back and Qualified Immunity.

----
This happened in Alabama

- Deputies raid a couple's home

- They steal / take many things of value, including $4000 in cash (the only money they had which they were going to use to refinance their chicken farm)

- They lost their house to foreclosure because of the raid

- LEO justify it under Civil Asset Forfeiture

- Deputies did NOT have a warrant.

- Judge who the deputy talked to testified that she NEVER issued a telephonic warrant. She stated that she specifically told him he does not have a warrant but probably has enough for a warrant. She specifically tells him that her talking to him is NOT a warrant

- Officer even testified he did not have a warrant.

- Couple had a chicken farm. Due to the Sheriff's actions and being jailed, they lost their house and farm. They ended up living in a shed because they were broke.

- This all happened i 2019. Only now did the couple receive some modicum of justice. A Jury just awarded them $1 million because of how balatant a rights violations this case was.



----

The Lawyer mentions how Civil Asset Forfeiture laws flips the concept of burden of proof. The gov. takes your stuff without any proof you did anything wrong and doesn't even accuse you of doing something illegal. You have to prove you are innocent. The litigation is stacked in the government's favor.

He also talks about how Qualified Immunity insulates LEOs in such cases because it invalidates many lawsuits

 

[oldshadow]

Good.

That is fucked up as hell. It's theft. I hope this starts happening everywhere.

Total lack of due process and should be stopped by the Supreme Court.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Good, good.

Any LEO that raided that property without a warrant should be hanged.

 

[MicroBrew]

Sheriff's deputy justifed the raid and theft because he says he smelled Marijuana.

----

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a very UnAmerican law.

Neither political party seems to be championing an end to this law. I would assume this would be a very good P.R. exercise for the politicians and party that champions against this law. It will win them support from the public.

I don't know for sure, but I assume Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Moderates will all support ending this law. But LEO organizations and the justice system support it and politicians want to look tough on crime and want the support of the LEOs.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Of course libertarians are against civil asset forfiture. I'm surprised liberals are. Isn't it justfiable the same way property tax is? You don't really own anything and the government can just take your shit if they feel like it because roads?

 

[MicroBrew]

Of course libertarians are against civil asset forfiture. I'm surprised liberals are. Isn't it justfiable the same way property tax is? You don't really own anything and the government can just take your shit if they feel like it because roads?

Why would liberals be in favor of it? Liberals are against LEO overreach and abuse.

It's more likely that supporters of the law lean conservative, because:

a) LEOs support this law, and conservatives are pro LEO
b) they think it is a great tool against drug dealers and other crimminal activity


I am not saying most conservatives are in favor of the law. Only that the people who do support it are more likely to be conservative than liberal.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

It’s not enough money and the cops who did it should be in prison.

 

[The XL]

This is good, but it's sort of comical that people think we live in a free country when government is objectively above the law and sort of does whatever it likes. We are not a free people and justice is not distributed equally.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Why would liberals be in favor of it? Liberals are against LEO overreach and abuse.

It's more likely that supporters of the law lean conservative, because:

a) LEOs support the law, and conservatives are pro LEO
b) they think it is a great tool against drug dealers and other crimminal activity


I am not saying most conservatives are in favor of the law. Only that the people who do support it are more likely to be conservative than liberal.

What's the argument for evicting people over unpaid property tax then? I thought it was 'not paying your taxes is illegal.' Other than this very specific case, civil asset forfiture is typically done as punishment for breaking the law, right?

 

[MicroBrew]

What's the argument for evicting people over unpaid property tax then? I thought it was 'not paying your taxes is illegal.' Other than this very specific case, civil asset forfiture is typically done as punishment for breaking the law, right?

No, Civil Asset Forfeiture is totally different from not paying taxes.

In CAF the government takes your money/possessions without any proof / evidence you attained it through illegal means.

Often times CAF cases involves Cops/Deputies pulling over a vehicle, finding a sizeable sum of money in the vehicle , and taking it. They never accuse the owner of the money of doing anything illegal. They have no proof the owner did anything illegal.

To get your money back you have to prove you are innocent. It is a bedrock of our justice system that the burden of proof is on law enforcement when they charge you or take your stuff. In CAF the burden of proof is on you to prove you did nothing wrong.

---

Here is one of the most famous cases highlighting the abusive nature of CAF. This ex Marine had all his money taken by Nevada Deputies even though they never charge him with anything. He was never arrested. He was never ticketed. They never accuse him of a crime. They just take his money because it was a large sum of money. He eventually won his money back, but after media attention and a lot of hassle.

 

[MicroBrew]

This is good, but it's sort of comical that people think we live in a free country when government is objectively above the law and sort of does whatever it likes. We are not a free people and justice is not distributed equally.

Qualified Immunity is one of the big factors in allowing such abuses.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

What's the argument for evicting people over unpaid property tax then? I thought it was 'not paying your taxes is illegal.' Other than this very specific case, civil asset forfiture is typically done as punishment for breaking the law, right?

Civil asset forfeiture takes place before a court conviction.

How can you argue that it is a punishment for breaking the law when rosecutors have yet to prove that you broke the law?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

No Civil Asset Forfeiture is totally different from not paying taxes.

In CAF the government takes your money/possessions without any proof / evidence you attained it through illegal means.

Often times CAF cases involves Cops/Deputies pulling over a vehicle, finding a sizeable sum of money in the vehicle , and taking it. They never accuse the owner of the money of doing anything illegal. They have no proof the owner did anything illegal.

To get your money back you have to prove you are innocent. It is a bedrock of our justice system that the burden of proof is on law enforcement when they charge you or take your stuff. In CAF the burden of proof is on you prove you did nothing wrong.

---

Here is one of the most famous cases highlighting the abusive nature of CAF. This ex Marine had all his money taken by Nevada Deputies even though they never charge him with anything. He was never arrested. He was never ticketed. They never accuse him of a crime. They just take his money because it was a large sum of money. He eventually won his money back, but after media attention and a lot of hassle.

I guess my point is you're either consistent on overreach, or you aren't. And when you aren't, it leaves people to theorize why you're so against one form and support the other.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Civil asset forfeiture takes place before a court conviction.

How can you argue that it is a punishment for breaking the law when rosecutors have yet to prove that you broke the law?

I don't argue anything like that. I'm against both. I'm just trying to wrap my head around bootlickers who support some forms of tyranny but not others.

 

[Scerpi]

Sheriff's deputy justifed the raid and theft because he says he smelled Marijuana.

----

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a very UnAmerican law.

Neither political party seems to be championing an end to this law. I would assume this would be a very good P.R. exercise for the politicians and party that champions against this law. It will win them support from the public.

I don't know for sure, but I assume Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Moderates will all support ending this law. But LEO organizations and the justice system support it and politicians want to look tough on crime and want the support of the LEOs.

An illegal leftover relic from the failed War on Drugs

Supposed to be used against drug suppliers and dealers... But as what always happens when the government acquires more power, now abused as an alternate source of income against average citizens.

 

[MicroBrew]

I guess my point is you're either consistent on overreach, or you aren't. And when you aren't, it leaves people to theorize why you're so against one form and support the other.

How am I inconsistent? Your example of not paying taxes is NOT analogus to CAF.

If you don't pay taxes and the government comes after you for tax evasion they have to prove you did not pay taxes. In CAF they do not have to prove anything to take your money / possessions.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

I don't argue anything like that. I'm against both. I'm just trying to wrap my head around bootlickers who support some forms of tyranny but not others.

Don't mean to say you are, just poking holes in this being a punishment for breaking the law.

Seems like asset forfeiture should be after a conviction takes place. Also seems like lunacy to seize assets based on a warrant, where the standards are much lower than a conviction.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

How am I inconsistent? Your example of not paying taxes is NOT analogus to CAF.

If you don't pay taxes and the government comes after you for tax evasion they have to prove you did not pay taxes. In CAF they do not have to prove anything to take your money / possessions.

It's inconsistent in my eyes because both are examples of government taking your lawful property just because they say so.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Don't mean to say you are, just poking holes in this being a punishment for breaking the law.

Seems like asset forfeiture should be after a conviction takes place. Also seems like lunacy to seize assets based on a warrant, where the standards are much lower than a conviction.

Yeah I generally think people should keep their hands off other people's shit. I know that makes me a fringe weirdo around here, but oh well.

 

[AWilder]

How am I inconsistent? Your example of not paying taxes is NOT analogus to CAF.

If you don't pay taxes and the government comes after you for tax evasion they have to prove you did not pay taxes. In CAF they do not have to prove anything to take your money / possessions.

He's a libertarian, you're going to have to really spell this out for him.