This month the Supreme Court will hear Alvarez v. Smith, "a challenge to the state of Illinois' Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/08/hold-on-to-your-assets) (DAFPA)" which allows police to seize property and cash suspected to be involved in a drug crime. Such laws mean your property and cash can be taken and held unless you prove your innocence, as opposed to say being innocent until proven guilty.


The six petitioners in Alvarez each had property seized by police who suspected the property had been involved in a drug crime. Three had their cars seized, three had cash taken. None of the six were served with a warrant, none of the six were charged with the crime. All perfectly legal, at least until now.

One outrageous example of this kind of grab is Mara Lynn Williams (http://www2.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/ala._woman_fights_land_seizure_after_spouse_dies/95698/), from whom the feds are trying to "seize her home and 40 acres in a marijuana case against her husband, who committed suicide during his trial."

The 14th amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What am I missing about "due process" that the authorities can seize your assets without a warrant and without being charged with a crime?

I think that the lefties on the Supreme Court will be torn on this one.

On one hand, we're talking about a case of protecting the rights of criminals. Their leftist leanings will lead them in that direction.

On the other hand, we're talking about granting the government more power than ever in seizing the assets of individuals without due process. Their leftist leanings will pull them in the direction of such an expansion of government power.

So... which is more important to them? The need to protect criminals' rights or the need to grow the government's power?

Tough call if you're a lib.

Elliot

I can see how that might be a real dilemma for them. How about we just honor the constitution?

I can see how that might be a real dilemma for them. How about we just honor the constitution?

What, and give up on social engineering through judicial fiat as a form of "justice"?

Never happen.

Elliot

This will be an interesting case.
Another irony may be that in her first month on SCOTUS ,Justice Mayor may very well come down on the right side of this issue. She authored the decision on Krimstock v. Kelly that struck down a NYC law very similar to the Illinois law challenged in Alvarez. Judge Posner of the 7th Circus cited Krimstock in it's decision.

It seems to be a clear violation of the "due process " clause .

Hello Steve:

So, why all of a sudden NOW, does asset forfeiture bother you? I know why it SHOULD bother you, but it should have done that back when they started doing it.

Why now?

Plus, I can't tell what the Wolverine or tom thinks. If I would have posted THIS POST, they would have been right there supporting asset forfeiture as a valuable tool in the drug war arsenal. No??

You guys are all over the board...

excon

Ex please provide the link where I have ever supported the policy of asset seizure without due process .

The only time I believe I have ever commented on anything even loosely related to this is when I went against the SCOTUS majority in the Kelo eminent domain case because they were seizing property .

Hello tom:

Let me put it this way. In ALL the years we've been discussing the drug war, I've never heard a PEEP out of you regarding THIS particular weapon in the drug warrior arsenal.

Since I've NEVER heard any opposition to the drug war, in ANY of its facets, you should excuse me if I presumed you supported it totally.

I see that the Wolverine is coming around to my view that the drug war IS a LIBERAL proposition - or is he?? I can see that he's a bit confused.

excon

Despite your assumptions ,all I have argued either way was against an abandonment or capitulation if you will of the premise that recreational drugs remain illegal . It is not that I don't see the point of the make drugs legal crowd .It's just that I think there are all types of negative unintended consequences associated with going down that path. The cure for civil society would be worse than the illness in my view.
Beyond that you have never heard me argue for tougher laws against users and I have clearly stated that I oppose mandatory sentencing .

Hello Steve:

So, why all of a sudden NOW, does asset forfeiture bother you? I know why it SHOULD bother you, but it should have done that back when they started doing it.

Ditto what tom said, I don't recall having ever supported asset seizure without due process.


Why now?

Because the case has come to my attention now.


Plus, I can't tell what the Wolverine or tom thinks. If I would have posted THIS POST, they would have been right there supporting asset forfeiture as a valuable tool in the drug war arsenal. No??

And I thought you would have jumped all over this and given us kudos for being on the same page back when I posted it last week.


You guys are all over the board...

Just when you thought you could box us in...

Excon,

Can you name a drug case where assets were seized without due process and the court upheld the seizure?

In my experience, when cops overstep their bounds like that, the courts are very quick to release the perp and his assets. And sanction the cop for overstepping his bounds.

Even the DEA, which is the group that seizes the most assets, especially in the war on drugs, has to do so with a warrant or needs just cause to seize assets. In cases with a warrant, the warrant itself is the due process, and the trial of the criminal is the completion of that due process. In cases of just cause, no warrant is required. The validity of just cause is reviewed during the trial, and the trial is itself the due process.

Can you name a case where assets were seized, where there was no warrant, no trial, no just cause and no due process, where the courts didn't force those assets to be released?

Bet you can't.

Elliot

Even the DEA, which is the group that seizes the most assets, especially in the war on drugs, has to do so with a warrant or needs just cause to seize assets. Hello again, Elliot:

I cannot discuss the LAW with you until you get an UNDERSTANDING of WHAT the law is. And, you don't have that... I don't know where you get the term "just cause", and where you think it's mentioned as justification for seizure.
In cases with a warrant, the warrant itself is the due process,No it isn't. The issuance of a warrant is a PART of due process. It is not due process all by itself...
In cases of just cause, no warrant is required.Absolutely MADE UP LAW.
The validity of just cause is reviewed during the trial, and the trial is itself the due process.No there isn't. There is NO SUCH THING IN THE LAW AS JUST CAUSE. IT'S MADE UP BY YOU.


Can you name a case where assets were seized, where there was no warrant, no trial, no just cause and no due process, where the courts didn't force those assets to be released? Bet you can't.I can. But, because there was NO warrant, NO trial, NO due process and NO records of the seizure, I could't prove the DEA stole millions from me - but they did.

excon

Aw... poor baby... they took your marajahoochie plants from you...