_"it's wrong and everyone knows that it's wrong"_ ... except for 90% of our judges, including the most distinguished lawyers in our land, the Supreme Court.
Believe me, they know its wrong. Furthermore, they know its unConstitutional , but as happens with so many of our governmental leaders, they think they can do as they please and truthfully many of them have nothing but contempt for our Constitution.
Not surprising when SCOTUS has held that actual innocence isn't a good enough reason to overturn a death penalty conviction when the trial followed all the rules.
We are way past due for serious police and judicial reform. Between civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, mandatory sentencing, and lack of independent civilian police oversight we are eroding the public trust in a critical system that serves as the foundation of our society.
I can’t help but love the mental picture of a cop yanking the local drug king/pimp from his Bentley, confiscating the car & everything in it with a smile & “Have a great day! Enjoy your walk.” But ... you’re absolutely right, it’s wrong. You’re providing us a great service. Thank you.
@@tinetannies4637 To *bold,* place an * asterisk on either end of the word or phrase. For _Italics,_ use _ underscore. To -strikeout,- use a - dash on either end. *_-These can be combined, also.-_* Then there's also CAPS LOCK for emphasis.
So, does this forfeiture ever happen to those with strong political and wealth connections? I would bet it only happens to those who are of lesser incomes and don't have an uncle that is a senator.
Watch the movie Gangs of New York. In this movie you'll see a politician named Tammany, he says, we have to give the impression we're UPHOLDING the law while we're breaking it. I seen a documentary on New York for the time period this movie was to represent, this guy was a politician and was corrupt. Well, times have not changed, the government portrays upholding the laws, while they themselves break them. They should confiscate ANY money that a soldier or someone that's about to enlist has on themselves, this will show them what freedoms they are fighting and or dying for. They might realize there are more DOMESTIC terrorists than foreign, and that they are supporting them in their crimes. Like the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together.
Andrew Stoll state level judges often have to run for election/re-election, and don’t dare risk appearing “soft on crime.” They also tend not to have much imagination.
@@glorioskiola Yes, I think not appearing to be soft on crime is probably a major factor for judges facing election. It's pretty easy for supporters of this to tell people what an important weapon it is, highlighting the cases where the cops crippled an criminal operation by seizing money from real bad actors etc. Plus enough voters STILL believe that the police behave well, and all those people that have stuff confiscated, "Well, they must have done SOMETHING wrong"!
@Patrick Faricy: OK, by the same logic, if the police don't have anything to hide why aren't they accepting the greater use of body and car cameras, open their files for review, etc.? The people have the protection of the Constitution concerning search and surveillance but the police conceal A LOT under what legal premise? In three cases I requested I requested a copy of the file and was refused in all three. One I dropped it. In another My request was met with,"if you pursue this matter ANY further, you will be charged with interfering with an officer", and I dropped it. The third I was flatly refused but I pursued it because of a misdemeanor and misconduct by the police immediately at the beginning of the incident and eventually got a hold of some of the file, where I discovered more offenses by the police.
@@stevelehto Please note the "just" in my initial sentence :) In that case it's not only a matter of personal taste but the position may actually be justified legally.
Thankfully I live in a country where a trial is needed before there is seizure if found guilty. It must be shown that the persons means of legal income make it unlikely they could have acquired the property that way.
Civil asset forfeiture and squatters legally allowed to remain in someone's house until a court has them leave are the two things that I still have trouble understanding. I've heard of Veterans returning from a tour overseas only to find out they have squatters living in their houses. I am surprised homeowners don't use lethal force in these situations.
Thank you Steve! It's folks such as yourself, agitating, advocating, and crying for change that has started the ball rolling. And thanks to Judge Steven John for picking up that ball and advancing it down the field!!! How we ever allowed this kind of immoral, illegal, and unethical practice to exist and flourish is unfathomable to me, and it's high time that the courts get off their collective asses, and Do The Right Thing... just as Judge John has done in South Carolina! ... Also, sharing one on Facebook!
"No related criminal charges",I heard that snippet loud and clear.Now I am going to be following this SC case .Hope you let us know more on this situation .I have always thought it was a disgrace to our legal system pillaging private property to enrich themselves.
Thank you for shedding light on this subject. Civil Asset Forfeiture is theft. Stealing is stealing no matter who is doing it. Look into the story that recently made the local news stations in Pittsburgh. State Police and DEA seize life savings of retiree at Pittsburgh International Airport. [$82,000+] No crime involved! Good on the South Carolina judge! These sort of shenanigans turn law enforcers into 'highway men'.
For those who question if a Judge should be allowed to rule like this, remember that there are three co-equal branches of Government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial. They all exist as Co-Equals to prevent the others from going off the rails.
"Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill" Why do I get the feeling it will do no such thing and it will probably be much worse? The government is going to limit itself?
Years ago I had acquaintance with a prosecutor who talked about civil asset forfeiture as a way of sticking it to the bad guys, often when you didn't quite have enough to get a conviction, and it was a boom to supplemented police budgets. So it hurts the criminals and it reduces the need to raise taxes (things the public/voters like to hear). So, judges and legislators, would hurt their careers to go against this. It is rare for these individuals to have the guts to say and do what is right.
If their Supreme Court upholds the lower Court's decision, would previous victims of "civil forfeiture" get to sue for the return of their properties? How about Court costs?
All victims of civil forfeiture have right to sue for the return of their assets. The problem is that most don't have the ability, and in many cases the costs associated with success exceed the amount taken. Unless you're doing it for the principle of the thing, spending $10K to get $8K back serves no purpose. I don't know about court costs. That would probably depend on where you filed the suit, but is something to consider as you might be liable for your opponents costs if you fail to win your case.
@@SirLyonhart Thanks, I guess I should have asked if the state would have to return previous forfeitures, either automatically or after reviewing? If so would it also include reimbursement of any legal expenses previously incurred by the victim as a result of improper asset seizure? My guess is NO. Is that where a class-action lawsuit is needed? I'm sure it will be used in trials seeking to end Civil Asset Forfeiture in other States, though!
If there is a fine assessed, then it goes to the state or courts, depending on the various laws in place. But a forfeiture generally is under different rules so the seizing agency gets it all or a large cut. So they don't want that going away.
i read a deal where a sheriff had his own truck seized and he got it back finally but they had vandalized it because he wouldn't go away. Someone else was driving it at the time of the seizure, and he figured he'd just go down and get it out of impound from the county it was in, he was sadly mistaken.
The difference between the previous "Hero" judge and this one is that this one appears to have managed to articulate an _intelligible legal basis_ for overturning the respective law in question.
There is one small South Carolina town (pop. 5500) that has a police department of 12. They currently have 4 K9 teams and aim for 6. Every traffic stop is subject to having a K9 run around the vehicle. If the dog indicates, it constitutes probable cause for a search that can result in siezure which goes to the town.
Not sure what I can do to help get these horrible laws overturned. But at the very least I'm sending that Judge a Thank You note. I recommend others do the same. Maybe Steve has a better idea.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" It's right there in the constitution. You can't just take stuff from people (Life, Freedom OR Property) unless they've been through the legal process first!
I went through that whole mess about ten years ago. I ended up having to file some sort of appeal that the prosecutor had to agree to in order to allow me to buy back my vehicle. The forfeiture was based on a charge that ended up being dropped, but apparently that didn't void the forfeiture. The vehicle had sentimental value so I was willing to jump through whatever hoops were necessary to get it back, but what a mess that whole thing was.
Hey Steve, I’m also a michigander and I recently read the MSP Legal Update and I believe it said they new requirement is that if they seize property, they have to file criminal charges within a certain time frame. A step in the right direction, I think.
You'll never see asset forfeiture against the wealthy who can afford high end law firms. Is this an undeclared institutional tax on lower income people?
Actually they do ding rich people. Maybe not Gates rich, but then what has he done to attract the attention? Actually the multi state attack on MS years ago was fun. But yeah, there have been high profile cases, including one raid in California, where they shot the home owner on the way in. These are not just grabbing cash from guys who are trying to buy something on Craigslist, they are usually fake drug raid forfeiture issues. Be sure to contribute to your local police, I guess.
They Shakedown rich people. - even people as rich as Bill Gates. The difference is, guys like Bill Gates have deep enough Pockets to hire enough lawyers to keep them at Bay or capitulate and hire K Street law firms to spread the green stuff around to the proper. Congressmen. .
This is how common law develops. Judges decide that there is some error in the law. They rule to correct it. And then that ruling is tested by other courts.
Sheesh! I confess that I was one of those who called you out for that judge that defied the law and refused to release the guy without bail. And I also confess that I applauded this judge's ruling against civil asset forfeiture. All I can say in my defense is ... hmm ... I think I'll not comment anymore until I think about this. Somehow, there has to be a difference between these two cases. Thanks for all your posts.
I was watching a documentary on asset forfeiture laws. The abuse is widespread in many states. A man arriving at an airport in one city was there to purchase a old motorcycle for $15,000 but was asked if he had large amounts of cash or anything out of the ordinary in his carry on luggage. He showed that he was there to purchase a motorcycle and the money for the purchase. Police immediately confiscated the money under the suspicion that it was drug money and to get it back he would have to prove it wasn't. He never did get it back. Asset forfeiture has become legalized robbery and theft by the authorities.
In North Carolina we have reformed. State law but our law enforcement agencies still participate in civil asset forfeiture at the Federal level. We need to continue to work on the Ricco statutes to bring this in line with the constitution.
Steve, congratulations on the mini step re civil forfeiture. What happens to these assets? Are they 'forgotten', is there an auditable accounting? This should show up on the city, co. or state books.
Another consequence of asset forfeiture is the police are focused on the acquisition of property and money through this process while NOT giving attention to crimes that need investigating. I had a nearly new truck stolen, the small town police department devoted a majority of their detective time to a misdemeanor possession case but completely ignored my felony case in spite of a witness and significant physical evidence. While immoral and unethical, that was not illegal, however, they covered up their misbehavior by refusing my request for a copy of the file, then stepping over the line of legality.
How are these civil asset forfeitures are not in direct violation of the 4th amendment? I remember when John Oliver from HBO made a segment about this subject. It showed the disgusting behaviors across the nation within the police departments. When my local police venue calls for pledges and $ donations, I simply reply by telling them they have enough funding with civil forfeitures.
Anyone who can read and takes the trouble to do so, knows that civil asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional. The trouble is getting activist judges to acknowledge the facts. If a cop asks me if I have any cash or guns in my possession, I will exercise my right to remain silent. The only way he can then find out is to conduct an illegal search which, in turn, gives me the basis for a lawsuit. The biggest reason people get robbed this way is because they stupidly answer the cops questions and don't stand up for their rights.
Judge: Bailiff, bring me the prosecutor's wallet. Prosecutor: !?! Judge: CAF Prosecutor: But... Judge: You don't like it either, eh? Oh, your car is mine now too.
I agree with you. These things are not the same. One is based on nothing in law. This is based on the opinion of what is written in the Constitution. Case Law of federal, state or local courts means nothing compared to what is written in the Constitution. All things are subservient to the US Constitution. Steve may need to relearn the hierarchy of the legal system. US Constitution --> Federal Law --> State Constitution --> Local Charters(Or whatever your localities calls them) --> Local Ordinances Anything below the preceding may not violate the superior law. Cases law means nothing if the case law violates the actual law and the Constitution is the supreme law, ex. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.) . And that supreme law is what this particular judge is citing. The other judge was citing nothing but the opinion that they do not agree with the law. Very different things. Only a jury has the power to ignore the law based on their opinion.
This is long overdue for a USA Supreme Court decision. Civil asset forfeiture WILL be struck down by the Supreme Court.. There is NO alternative.. If upheld, the Police State would run amuck. Several Amendments of the Bill of Rights would be rendered meaningless.
In Ireland, there is a branch of An Garda Siochana (the CAB) who trace criminal assets following a guilty verdict, put the evidence before a judge, and then seize those assets when the judge issues a seizure order.
Steve, could you cover the reason behind why civil asset forfeiture was created, and the intended targets for this law? I think that I heard at one point it was created as a way to go after the property of organized crime who were using the law to protect their assets. When looking to disassemble a bad policy it is beneficial to review the intent, and then look at the actual performance, and unintended impacts. Once decision makers have that perspective it is usually much easier to get the changes made,, or the complete repeal of the policy if it is not having the desired overall effect. I think it would be beneficial for your viewers who want to engage their representatives a quality review that they can use as part of their arguments when discussing this subject with others. Who knows, a video like that could go viral and have a huge impact.
Sounds like you are a potential murderer. You do not know what level of force will be required if you catch a thief in the act but you have already decided death is the level you will use.
I'm sure you believe you're being witty making such a post, but in fact what you just posted can be used as evidence in a premeditated murder case brought against you should you ever follow through with your boast. And all for nothing, as frankly nobody is impressed by your statement except for other sociopaths who also value materialism over human life.
That judge is upholding the principles of the US Constitution, what he swore an oath to uphold, rather than the state's unconstitutional statute. The state prosecutors are strategically to not fighting those individuals who challenge the civil forfeiture because if they did challenge it and forfiture was upheld by he local court then those cases are then subject to appeal. There, the law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional. It is my understanding that the Supreme Court in this case still needs to grant certiorari in this case for these types of laws to be fixed Nation wide though.
i read on a car forum of a guy that went to his bank, made a withdrawal. less that 10 thousand dollars IIRC, to buy a car. On the way there, on his pickup, towing a car trailer got pulled over and the cop took his money.
If the supreme court overturns CAF, does that open of the police departments to lawsuits? A person could sue to get their money back with interest and for compensation to repair their ruined life.
I'm curious if they have ever followed the seizures conducted to see where the money goes? When cash is involved somehow odd things seem to happen. It would be interesting to follow the money. Thanks for sharing
In a narrow sense, yes, this judge acted outside the law. But there is no law in the U.S. higher than the U.S. Constitution, so in a more complete sense, the judge followed the law. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I have heard from those knowledgeable in the law, that "lower" courts are not supposed to decide cases based on constitutionality, if there is any less sweeping principle that can determine it, so maybe Steve can clarify the role of a local state court in such a case, as well as clarify my possible misunderstanding. Fred
Civil asset forfeiture is the seizing of a citizen's property without charge or trial. That is by definition, to any reasonable person, unreasonable. Judges who pretend otherwise in their court rulings are literally either ignoring the 4th amendment outright or are overstepping their bounds and acting as the legislature and are essentially rewriting it such that it means the exact opposite of what literal words say. As such, those judges are traitors and such rulings should result in the judge(s) being tried, convicted, and sent to prison.
civil Asset Forfeiture started out as a penalty . You had to be convicet. Now, it's just what you want. At least one Sheriff in NJ has been convicted of abuse of that presentation.
Hi Steve. I actually think that you could do the math, but you just lost your calculator! Lol So for that change to take place on civil asset forfeiture, we have to do the same thing we have to do on our John deer mower, while mowing on steep ground. Place the throttle in TURTLE MODE, and slowly proceed forward! Thanks Steve. See ya. But I'll miss this live again because I'll be at Sam's Club with the Mrs. getting all those good deals that will last me into the next millennium. Yum 500 hotdogs. I'm looking forward to that. :(. See ya. Jpol.
Legislatures love civil infractions and other civil proceedings because the state has almost no burden of proof. Regulations are civil in nature, but when imposed can be punitive to the average citizen. Some people in society can go to prison for this, with no criminality proven.
I would say it would be alright to seize money and assets that are related to the crime or fruit of the crime. But I still feel like under criminal asset forfeiture that law enforcement agencies would want to use that in a punitive manner. "This is a bad guy, let's take his stuff." That's night right either. Like you mentioned, why not just fine them? Have the prosecutor present a case to the judge and ask for appropriate prison time and appropriate fines. The judge can then rule on that and impose a fine where proper.
Years ago I heard of a cop department near a casino who, when they needed more money, would do traffic stops on the highway heading to the casino, and take any cash they found.
Yes, this is in the same realm as the judge stopping the guy from walking when he threatened a gun but didn't use a gun in the bank robbery. It is not exactly legislating from the bench, but it is more objecting to precedent already set. It does draw attention to the problem when we hear stories like this. The more we hear about the problems the more likely they will be fixed. More More More!
Yup Dallas PD stole my car with 0 evidence. Lawyer said it would cost 15k to get it back and possibly take years. Blue book value of the car was 15k. Bunch of crooks
I like your content been subscribed for some time now. However, as of late don't know if I listen to your post just to hear that lovely voice full of wit at the end.
What I don't understand is how the Supreme Court ignores the fact that when the due process clause says that the government shall not seize property without due process it neither limits it to criminal matters nor does it exempt civil actions. My reading is that in no circumstance shall the government do otherwise no matter how such seizures are characterized.
Steve, this case is very different from the other one, leaving aside that one is civil and the other is criminal. In this case, the judge ruled that the higher law (the Constitution) trumped statutory law. That he apparently ignored case law precedent is concerning, and possibly a case of judicial misconduct (I'm not a lawyer), but ultimately this was a ruling based on what the judge thought the law was according to the Constitution. In the other case, there is obviously no Constitutional requirement that someone be held in jail pending trial (the Constitution encourages just the opposite). That judge knowingly ordered a man held in jail in violation of a law that no one disputes is constitutional, but many think is too lenient. That should be very concerning to anyone, even if I and most other people agree that that law is flawed and needs to be tweaked.
If a court/judge never rules on a bad law, how will the law be overturned? Just because the legislature says so, does not make the law "just". Good for the judge making a stand.
The term "storage" bothers me. That should be changed to something like "stored AND MAINTAINED in the condition it which it was seized" and language should be added for the return of the specific and exact items seized to keep them from assigning face value to something like a rare coin collection.
That C note has a life of its own. It moves from location from day to day. Now I have been wondering what those two glass things with connectors sticking out sitting next to that blue scandinavian flag.
_"it's wrong and everyone knows that it's wrong"_ ... except for 90% of our judges, including the most distinguished lawyers in our land, the Supreme Court.
Believe me, they know its wrong. Furthermore, they know its unConstitutional , but as happens with so many of our governmental leaders, they think they can do as they please and truthfully many of them have nothing but contempt for our Constitution.
Not surprising when SCOTUS has held that actual innocence isn't a good enough reason to overturn a death penalty conviction when the trial followed all the rules.
To say nothing of all the cops on the streets who are doing the actual stealing, I mean seizing.
This is a law that should have never been made! It's wrong every way you look at it!. I commend that Judge he deserves respect from all!
Preacher Bob
Just remember who passed the law
FINALLY a judge that honors his OATH to the CONSTITUTION!!!
God Bless this Judge!
We are way past due for serious police and judicial reform. Between civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, mandatory sentencing, and lack of independent civilian police oversight we are eroding the public trust in a critical system that serves as the foundation of our society.
We need to abolish the contract with the police department and the citys. We don't need them or want them.
I can’t help but love the mental picture of a cop yanking the local drug king/pimp from his Bentley, confiscating the car & everything in it with a smile & “Have a great day! Enjoy your walk.” But ... you’re absolutely right, it’s wrong. You’re providing us a great service. Thank you.
3:40 (DA) _"Don't steal any more stuff from people __-because it's wrong.-__ _*_because we have to pay to store it now, instead of selling it._*
@@tinetannies4637
To *bold,* place an * asterisk on either end of the word or phrase. For _Italics,_ use _ underscore. To -strikeout,- use a - dash on either end. *_-These can be combined, also.-_* Then there's also CAPS LOCK for emphasis.
@@tinetannies4637
Never used that. I loomed them up on Google.
@@xenaguy01 All this time I've been using Yaytext.com. This is much easier, once I remember how to use each one.
So, does this forfeiture ever happen to those with strong political and wealth connections? I would bet it only happens to those who are of lesser incomes and don't have an uncle that is a senator.
That's right. The cops know which side of their bread's buttered
One of the big problems is that IT DOES
Lol, of course not. But, this has been gaining traction because they expanded it significantly recently and started using it against the middle class.
@@admthrawnuru there have been legitimate and decently large ceos/business owners who have been hit by this
@@perrymeril It _"does"_ happen to people with money & connections? And that's "one of the big problems"?
How? I'm sorry, I don't understand!
Why are not all judges doing this??? Do they get a kick back from the police to keep quiet???
Watch the movie Gangs of New York. In this movie you'll see a politician named Tammany, he says, we have to give the impression we're UPHOLDING the law while we're breaking it. I seen a documentary on New York for the time period this movie was to represent, this guy was a politician and was corrupt. Well, times have not changed, the government portrays upholding the laws, while they themselves break them. They should confiscate ANY money that a soldier or someone that's about to enlist has on themselves, this will show them what freedoms they are fighting and or dying for. They might realize there are more DOMESTIC terrorists than foreign, and that they are supporting them in their crimes. Like the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together.
Andrew Stoll state level judges often have to run for election/re-election, and don’t dare risk appearing “soft on crime.” They also tend not to have much imagination.
@@glorioskiola Yes, I think not appearing to be soft on crime is probably a major factor for judges facing election. It's pretty easy for supporters of this to tell people what an important weapon it is, highlighting the cases where the cops crippled an criminal operation by seizing money from real bad actors etc. Plus enough voters STILL believe that the police behave well, and all those people that have stuff confiscated, "Well, they must have done SOMETHING wrong"!
@@silver6054 Those judges are tough on the innocent.
@Patrick Faricy: OK, by the same logic, if the police don't have anything to hide why aren't they accepting the greater use of body and car cameras, open their files for review, etc.? The people have the protection of the Constitution concerning search and surveillance but the police conceal A LOT under what legal premise?
In three cases I requested I requested a copy of the file and was refused in all three. One I dropped it. In another My request was met with,"if you pursue this matter ANY further, you will be charged with interfering with an officer", and I dropped it. The third I was flatly refused but I pursued it because of a misdemeanor and misconduct by the police immediately at the beginning of the incident and eventually got a hold of some of the file, where I discovered more offenses by the police.
I cant wait till this shit ends. Its so wrong
In my opinion there's a major difference between a judge just disliking a law and a judge considering a law unconstitutional.
What if he dislikes the law because he thinks its unconstitutional?
@@stevelehto Did the _previous_ "Hero" judge give any indication that that was the case?
@@stevelehto Please note the "just" in my initial sentence :) In that case it's not only a matter of personal taste but the position may actually be justified legally.
@@stevelehto That's just being a normal reasonable person.
Thankfully I live in a country where a trial is needed before there is seizure if found guilty. It must be shown that the persons means of legal income make it unlikely they could have acquired the property that way.
Civil asset forfeiture and squatters legally allowed to remain in someone's house until a court has them leave are the two things that I still have trouble understanding. I've heard of Veterans returning from a tour overseas only to find out they have squatters living in their houses. I am surprised homeowners don't use lethal force in these situations.
Thank you Steve! It's folks such as yourself, agitating, advocating, and crying for change that has started the ball rolling. And thanks to Judge Steven John for picking up that ball and advancing it down the field!!! How we ever allowed this kind of immoral, illegal, and unethical practice to exist and flourish is unfathomable to me, and it's high time that the courts get off their collective asses, and Do The Right Thing... just as Judge John has done in South Carolina!
... Also, sharing one on Facebook!
"No related criminal charges",I heard that snippet loud and clear.Now I am going to be following this SC case .Hope you let us know more on this situation .I have always thought it was a disgrace to our legal system pillaging private property to enrich themselves.
I'm dealing with Civil Asset Forfeiture on the Federal level for an item, not money. It isn't fun nor cheap to deal with.
I wish you the best of luck in your case!
Thank you for shedding light on this subject. Civil Asset Forfeiture is theft. Stealing is stealing no matter who is doing it. Look into the story that recently made the local news stations in Pittsburgh. State Police and DEA seize life savings of retiree at Pittsburgh International Airport. [$82,000+] No crime involved! Good on the South Carolina judge! These sort of shenanigans turn law enforcers into 'highway men'.
A judge for the people ? A rare one indeed !
For those who question if a Judge should be allowed to rule like this, remember that there are three co-equal branches of Government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial. They all exist as Co-Equals to prevent the others from going off the rails.
Should ONLY happen when a CRIME is PROVEN where that money is a result off....
Thank you. At least one good guy is still out there!
This is an excellent channel, I enjoy the content and delivery.
There are good judges out there. Thank you Steven.
This is why. SOMETIMES. people take the law in their own hands
"Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill"
Why do I get the feeling it will do no such thing and it will probably be much worse?
The government is going to limit itself?
@bootnsoot Only when we stand together. Unfortunately most people are afraid to stand at all.
bootnsoot If “we are the government” then how did we get civil asset forfeiture in the first place???
bootnsoot OK Pollyanna. Got it.
@bootnsoot this isn't a proposition it's a bill. It's in the hands of our representatives not us.
@bootnsoot Yeah let me know how that goes for you.
Hi Steve, your one of the good guys. Thank you.
Years ago I had acquaintance with a prosecutor who talked about civil asset forfeiture as a way of sticking it to the bad guys, often when you didn't quite have enough to get a conviction, and it was a boom to supplemented police budgets. So it hurts the criminals and it reduces the need to raise taxes (things the public/voters like to hear). So, judges and legislators, would hurt their careers to go against this. It is rare for these individuals to have the guts to say and do what is right.
Bongo ! You might have found the only decent and honest judge in the country.
7:12 Actually it DOES have to do with "crime", of course, but on the part of the authorities. :P
A ray of hope in the darkness the insane web of laws is always welcome, no matter how small.
I think this Judge can be summed up in one word.
AWESOME
If their Supreme Court upholds the lower Court's decision, would previous victims of "civil forfeiture" get to sue for the return of their properties? How about Court costs?
All victims of civil forfeiture have right to sue for the return of their assets. The problem is that most don't have the ability, and in many cases the costs associated with success exceed the amount taken. Unless you're doing it for the principle of the thing, spending $10K to get $8K back serves no purpose. I don't know about court costs. That would probably depend on where you filed the suit, but is something to consider as you might be liable for your opponents costs if you fail to win your case.
_"... would previous victims get to recover..."_
They can always sue to recover, but it can't be automatic, because it was legal at the time.
@@SirLyonhart Thanks, I guess I should have asked if the state would have to return previous forfeitures, either automatically or after reviewing? If so would it also include reimbursement of any legal expenses previously incurred by the victim as a result of improper asset seizure? My guess is NO. Is that where a class-action lawsuit is needed? I'm sure it will be used in trials seeking to end Civil Asset Forfeiture in other States, though!
@@SirLyonhart Perhaps they could file a Class Action against the State?
@L Steiner I think that sounds reasonable. Let's hope this leads to the ABOLISHMENT of that end-run around the 14th Amendment, Civil Asset Forfeiture!
If there is a fine assessed, then it goes to the state or courts, depending on the various laws in place. But a forfeiture generally is under different rules so the seizing agency gets it all or a large cut. So they don't want that going away.
We really need this judge to set the example so the rest of the states can follow along. This should be enacted in every state.
I wish I could like this video and your commentary at the end more than once.
i read a deal where a sheriff had his own truck seized and he got it back finally but they had vandalized it because he wouldn't go away. Someone else was driving it at the time of the seizure, and he figured he'd just go down and get it out of impound from the county it was in, he was sadly mistaken.
Where does the seized money go? Who checks the individuals?
The difference between the previous "Hero" judge and this one is that this one appears to have managed to articulate an _intelligible legal basis_ for overturning the respective law in question.
Thank you! I enjoy your lessons and news.
There is one small South Carolina town (pop. 5500) that has a police department of 12. They currently have 4 K9 teams and aim for 6. Every traffic stop is subject to having a K9 run around the vehicle. If the dog indicates, it constitutes probable cause for a search that can result in siezure which goes to the town.
The three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Just a Bunch of Judges...
atticstattic and Just A Bunch Of Judges funded and paid by the Legislative and Executive Branches. Can anyone see a conflict there?
The three branches are: The Criminal, The Complicit, and The Clowns
Not sure what I can do to help get these horrible laws overturned.
But at the very least I'm sending that Judge a Thank You note. I recommend others do the same. Maybe Steve has a better idea.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" It's right there in the constitution. You can't just take stuff from people (Life, Freedom OR Property) unless they've been through the legal process first!
I went through that whole mess about ten years ago. I ended up having to file some sort of appeal that the prosecutor had to agree to in order to allow me to buy back my vehicle. The forfeiture was based on a charge that ended up being dropped, but apparently that didn't void the forfeiture. The vehicle had sentimental value so I was willing to jump through whatever hoops were necessary to get it back, but what a mess that whole thing was.
Hey Steve, I’m also a michigander and I recently read the MSP Legal Update and I believe it said they new requirement is that if they seize property, they have to file criminal charges within a certain time frame. A step in the right direction, I think.
You'll never see asset forfeiture against the wealthy who can afford high end law firms.
Is this an undeclared institutional tax on lower income people?
Actually they do ding rich people. Maybe not Gates rich, but then what has he done to attract the attention? Actually the multi state attack on MS years ago was fun. But yeah, there have been high profile cases, including one raid in California, where they shot the home owner on the way in. These are not just grabbing cash from guys who are trying to buy something on Craigslist, they are usually fake drug raid forfeiture issues. Be sure to contribute to your local police, I guess.
They Shakedown rich people. - even people as rich as Bill Gates. The difference is, guys like Bill Gates have deep enough Pockets to hire enough lawyers to keep them at Bay or capitulate and hire K Street law firms to spread the green stuff around to the proper. Congressmen. .
John Roberts will just call it a tax if it makes it to the SC.
USA gov't IS the ENEMY of The People.
@@r2r-r2r As are all governments.
Obamacouldcareless act?
John Roberts is a conservative... he wouldn't call it a tax; he'd call it a fee.
Love the microphone collection. I used the third one from that right for short wave during my teens in the 60's
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!
This is how common law develops. Judges decide that there is some error in the law. They rule to correct it. And then that ruling is tested by other courts.
Sheesh! I confess that I was one of those who called you out for that judge that defied the law and refused to release the guy without bail. And I also confess that I applauded this judge's ruling against civil asset forfeiture. All I can say in my defense is ... hmm ... I think I'll not comment anymore until I think about this. Somehow, there has to be a difference between these two cases.
Thanks for all your posts.
I was watching a documentary on asset forfeiture laws. The abuse is widespread in many states. A man arriving at an airport in one city was there to purchase a old motorcycle for $15,000 but was asked if he had large amounts of cash or anything out of the ordinary in his carry on luggage. He showed that he was there to purchase a motorcycle and the money for the purchase. Police immediately confiscated the money under the suspicion that it was drug money and to get it back he would have to prove it wasn't. He never did get it back. Asset forfeiture has become legalized robbery and theft by the authorities.
In North Carolina we have reformed. State law but our law enforcement agencies still participate in civil asset forfeiture at the Federal level. We need to continue to work on the Ricco statutes to bring this in line with the constitution.
Steve, congratulations on the mini step re civil forfeiture.
What happens to these assets? Are they 'forgotten', is there an auditable accounting? This should show up on the city, co. or state books.
Another consequence of asset forfeiture is the police are focused on the acquisition of property and money through this process while NOT giving attention to crimes that need investigating. I had a nearly new truck stolen, the small town police department devoted a majority of their detective time to a misdemeanor possession case but completely ignored my felony case in spite of a witness and significant physical evidence. While immoral and unethical, that was not illegal, however, they covered up their misbehavior by refusing my request for a copy of the file, then stepping over the line of legality.
How are these civil asset forfeitures are not in direct violation of the 4th amendment? I remember when John Oliver from HBO made a segment about this subject. It showed the disgusting behaviors across the nation within the police departments. When my local police venue calls for pledges and $ donations, I simply reply by telling them they have enough funding with civil forfeitures.
Finally! Some good news about this, this made my day actually and I'm Canadian, just think the premise is so absurd I can't believe it's true.
And this is no different than Red Flag laws. No due process, taking without recompense, and if your property is damaged it's all on you.
Anyone who can read and takes the trouble to do so, knows that civil asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional. The trouble is getting activist judges to acknowledge the facts. If a cop asks me if I have any cash or guns in my possession, I will exercise my right to remain silent. The only way he can then find out is to conduct an illegal search which, in turn, gives me the basis for a lawsuit. The biggest reason people get robbed this way is because they stupidly answer the cops questions and don't stand up for their rights.
All of the players in this nonsense also took an oath to obey the state and federal constitution.
to which No One has Ever been brought to task on. Oaths = nothing.
what a brave dude is the judge
Judge: Bailiff, bring me the prosecutor's wallet.
Prosecutor: !?!
Judge: CAF
Prosecutor: But...
Judge: You don't like it either, eh? Oh, your car is mine now too.
But by appealing to the constitution, he IS following the law as he is supposed to.
He specifically ruled against the interpretations made by his state's supreme court. Which is - technically - against the state's constitution.
I agree with you. These things are not the same. One is based on nothing in law. This is based on the opinion of what is written in the Constitution. Case Law of federal, state or local courts means nothing compared to what is written in the Constitution. All things are subservient to the US Constitution. Steve may need to relearn the hierarchy of the legal system.
US Constitution --> Federal Law --> State Constitution --> Local Charters(Or whatever your localities calls them) --> Local Ordinances
Anything below the preceding may not violate the superior law. Cases law means nothing if the case law violates the actual law and the Constitution is the supreme law, ex. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.) . And that supreme law is what this particular judge is citing. The other judge was citing nothing but the opinion that they do not agree with the law. Very different things. Only a jury has the power to ignore the law based on their opinion.
This is long overdue for a USA Supreme Court decision.
Civil asset forfeiture WILL be struck down by the Supreme Court..
There is NO alternative.. If upheld, the Police State would run amuck.
Several Amendments of the Bill of Rights would be rendered meaningless.
In Ireland, there is a branch of An Garda Siochana (the CAB) who trace criminal assets following a guilty verdict, put the evidence before a judge, and then seize those assets when the judge issues a seizure order.
To abolish civil asset forfeiture is simple. It just need to happen to a someone on the Supreme Court and it would stop real quick.
I think what is right should be more important than what past judges have legislated. SO I'm with the judge, Let's fix a broken system.
Steve, could you cover the reason behind why civil asset forfeiture was created, and the intended targets for this law? I think that I heard at one point it was created as a way to go after the property of organized crime who were using the law to protect their assets.
When looking to disassemble a bad policy it is beneficial to review the intent, and then look at the actual performance, and unintended impacts. Once decision makers have that perspective it is usually much easier to get the changes made,, or the complete repeal of the policy if it is not having the desired overall effect.
I think it would be beneficial for your viewers who want to engage their representatives a quality review that they can use as part of their arguments when discussing this subject with others.
Who knows, a video like that could go viral and have a huge impact.
Regardless of the costume a thief chooses, they are still a thief; and in my home thieves get shot dead on sight.
Sounds like you are a potential murderer. You do not know what level of force will be required if you catch a thief in the act but you have already decided death is the level you will use.
@@ahorsewithnoname643 Sounds like you should go visit him and try to steal his property.
@@franklyanogre00000
Sounds like you are another death row candidate for the use of unreasonable force.
I'm sure you believe you're being witty making such a post, but in fact what you just posted can be used as evidence in a premeditated murder case brought against you should you ever follow through with your boast. And all for nothing, as frankly nobody is impressed by your statement except for other sociopaths who also value materialism over human life.
That judge is upholding the principles of the US Constitution, what he swore an oath to uphold, rather than the state's unconstitutional statute. The state prosecutors are strategically to not fighting those individuals who challenge the civil forfeiture because if they did challenge it and forfiture was upheld by he local court then those cases are then subject to appeal. There, the law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional. It is my understanding that the Supreme Court in this case still needs to grant certiorari in this case for these types of laws to be fixed Nation wide though.
i read on a car forum of a guy that went to his bank, made a withdrawal. less that 10 thousand dollars IIRC, to buy a car. On the way there, on his pickup, towing a car trailer got pulled over and the cop took his money.
If the supreme court overturns CAF, does that open of the police departments to lawsuits? A person could sue to get their money back with interest and for compensation to repair their ruined life.
I'm curious if they have ever followed the seizures conducted to see where the money goes? When cash is involved somehow odd things seem to happen. It would be interesting to follow the money. Thanks for sharing
You say the prettiest things.
Nebraska has no civil asset forfeiture law without criminal conviction. New Mexico is the same.
In a narrow sense, yes, this judge acted outside the law. But there is no law in the U.S. higher than the U.S. Constitution, so in a more complete sense, the judge followed the law.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but I have heard from those knowledgeable in the law, that "lower" courts are not supposed to decide cases based on constitutionality, if there is any less sweeping principle that can determine it, so maybe Steve can clarify the role of a local state court in such a case, as well as clarify my possible misunderstanding.
Fred
Civil asset forfeiture is the seizing of a citizen's property without charge or trial. That is by definition, to any reasonable person, unreasonable. Judges who pretend otherwise in their court rulings are literally either ignoring the 4th amendment outright or are overstepping their bounds and acting as the legislature and are essentially rewriting it such that it means the exact opposite of what literal words say. As such, those judges are traitors and such rulings should result in the judge(s) being tried, convicted, and sent to prison.
Its about time we did something right in Greenville.
Great story I think this Judge is a Good Man, sorry to say it seems he is a rare find.
In Australia we have Proceeds of CRIMES Act. Even the title defines the way this should be handled.
civil Asset Forfeiture started out as a penalty . You had to be convicet. Now, it's just what you want. At least one Sheriff in NJ has been convicted of abuse of that presentation.
Hi Steve. I actually think that you could do the math, but you just lost your calculator! Lol So for that change to take place on civil asset forfeiture, we have to do the same thing we have to do on our John deer mower, while mowing on steep ground. Place the throttle in TURTLE MODE, and slowly proceed forward! Thanks Steve. See ya. But I'll miss this live again because I'll be at Sam's Club with the Mrs. getting all those good deals that will last me into the next millennium. Yum 500 hotdogs. I'm looking forward to that. :(. See ya. Jpol.
Legislatures love civil infractions and other civil proceedings because the state has almost no burden of proof. Regulations are civil in nature, but when imposed can be punitive to the average citizen. Some people in society can go to prison for this, with no criminality proven.
I would say it would be alright to seize money and assets that are related to the crime or fruit of the crime. But I still feel like under criminal asset forfeiture that law enforcement agencies would want to use that in a punitive manner. "This is a bad guy, let's take his stuff." That's night right either. Like you mentioned, why not just fine them? Have the prosecutor present a case to the judge and ask for appropriate prison time and appropriate fines. The judge can then rule on that and impose a fine where proper.
Justifiable greed.. The worst kind.
Years ago I heard of a cop department near a casino who, when they needed more money, would do traffic stops on the highway heading to the casino, and take any cash they found.
Yes, this is in the same realm as the judge stopping the guy from walking when he threatened a gun but didn't use a gun in the bank robbery. It is not exactly legislating from the bench, but it is more objecting to precedent already set. It does draw attention to the problem when we hear stories like this. The more we hear about the problems the more likely they will be fixed. More More More!
Thank you.
Regards,
Geoff. Reeks
Clearly this judge in South Carolina is not corrupt enough to serve in his post. Something must be done about this.
I remember when this came up in the 80's I thought it was pretty clearly intended as an end run around the Bill of rights.
Gives a whole new meaning to highway man
Yup Dallas PD stole my car with 0 evidence. Lawyer said it would cost 15k to get it back and possibly take years. Blue book value of the car was 15k. Bunch of crooks
I like your content been subscribed for some time now. However, as of late don't know if I listen to your post just to hear that lovely voice full of wit at the end.
What I don't understand is how the Supreme Court ignores the fact that when the due process clause says that the government shall not seize property without due process it neither limits it to criminal matters nor does it exempt civil actions. My reading is that in no circumstance shall the government do otherwise no matter how such seizures are characterized.
It shocks me when I talk about asset forfeiture, how many people doesn’t even know about it or don’t care.
Steve, this case is very different from the other one, leaving aside that one is civil and the other is criminal. In this case, the judge ruled that the higher law (the Constitution) trumped statutory law. That he apparently ignored case law precedent is concerning, and possibly a case of judicial misconduct (I'm not a lawyer), but ultimately this was a ruling based on what the judge thought the law was according to the Constitution. In the other case, there is obviously no Constitutional requirement that someone be held in jail pending trial (the Constitution encourages just the opposite). That judge knowingly ordered a man held in jail in violation of a law that no one disputes is constitutional, but many think is too lenient. That should be very concerning to anyone, even if I and most other people agree that that law is flawed and needs to be tweaked.
Is it a vehicle ? It depends on how it is being used at the time.
Whatever happened with the controversy here in Macomb County involving the prosecutors office misappropriating civil asset forfeiture funds?
If a court/judge never rules on a bad law, how will the law be overturned? Just because the legislature says so, does not make the law "just". Good for the judge making a stand.
Thanks for your work on this issue
The term "storage" bothers me. That should be changed to something like "stored AND MAINTAINED in the condition it which it was seized" and language should be added for the return of the specific and exact items seized to keep them from assigning face value to something like a rare coin collection.
That C note has a life of its own. It moves from location from day to day. Now I have been wondering what those two glass things with connectors sticking out sitting next to that blue scandinavian flag.
If they have to give the items back, the cops will actually have to go out and actually do their job and work.
Freedom from Search or Seizure but upon Probable Cause...