Presumed Guilty

Civil asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives that can cost you your property.


Did you know that inanimate objects could be found "guilty" in a court of law and ultimately become the property of the state?

Just ask Mark Brewer, a disabled Air Force veteran who was pulled over in Nebraska in November 2011 after changing lanes without signaling on Interstate 80 – a traffic infraction that cost him more than $63,500.

The deputy sheriff who pulled him over claimed he smelled marijuana and searched Brewer's car. He found no drugs, but did find two backpacks containing $63,530 in cash, which Brewer said he was taking to California with the intent of using it as a down payment on a home. The deputy seized the cash, claiming drug residue had been detected on the money.

Brewer challenged the seizure in federal court to get his money back, but despite his lack of a criminal record and never being charged with a crime in the case, he lost his lengthy appeal in March 2015 – along with the money.

Under civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement can seize private property in this fashion without a search warrant or an indictment, much less a conviction, based solely on the suspicion that the property has been involved in criminal activity. This is the very opposite of the notion of innocent till proven guilty, which is the basis of this country's justice system.

Civil asset forfeiture was rightly designed as a tool to combat narcotics traffickers, money launderers and other criminal enterprises by seizing their ill-gotten gains. But because more than three-quarters of the states, along with the federal government, allow law enforcement to keep some or all of the proceeds from civil asset forfeiture, it has created a powerful financial incentive for vigorous pursuit of the practice, particularly in these times of tight budgets. Over time, civil forfeiture has spread far beyond drug kingpins to anyone tangentially related to law-breaking.

To be clear, police departments and prosecutors' offices should be equipped and fully funded to face the challenges they face each day. Their ability to protect and serve our communities, however, should not be dependent on the arbitrary availability of outside funding but guaranteed through regular appropriations.

In a June 2015 report, "Civil Asset Forfeiture: Grading the States," the FreedomWorks Foundation decried a disturbing disregard for due process in civil asset forfeiture cases in all but a handful of states. In a separate report, "Guilty Property," that was issued in the same month, the American Civil Liberties Union found that law enforcement in Pennsylvania takes in roughly $14 million in cash, cars and homes each year using civil asset forfeiture laws. And remember: That's just one state.

At the federal level, some $2.5 billion in property and cash has been confiscated in 60,000 civil asset forfeiture seizures over the past 15 years. Worse, about 80 percent of the affected individuals were never charged with a federal crime.

Some percentage of these cases were legitimate to the extent that the property and cash were genuinely connected to criminal activity, but even then, the forfeiture shouldn't occur until after conviction.

As Brewer's case attests, civil asset forfeiture all too often ensnares innocent people in a costly and convoluted process of having to prove their property is "not guilty" of involvement in criminal activity. Those whose property has been unfairly forfeited typically have to spend a small fortune in lawyers' fees in an effort to get it back – and even then with no guarantee of success.

When the cost of legal representation outweighs the value of the property confiscated, victims of civil asset forfeiture typically choose to abandon the property.


As such, the need for civil asset forfeiture reform should be self-evident. In recognizing the perverse incentive civil asset forfeiture creates, there's now growing support for reform from law enforcement at both the state and federal level, and from politicians on both ends of the political spectrum. The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee showed strong bipartisan support for a civil asset forfeiture reform bill they passed by voice vote this spring, and the bill is now being considered for part of the justice reform package that House Speaker Paul Ryan said he plans to bring to the House floor in September.

Brewer's case was so heartrendingly egregious, in fact, that his example became a rallying cry for reform of Nebraska's civil asset forfeiture laws. In April, Gov. Pete Ricketts signed into law a bill that prohibits the state from taking property without a criminal conviction. Nebraska thus joined Montana and New Mexico among the states in the vanguard of righting this legal wrong. A year earlier, in the spring of 2015, those states enacted reforms similarly requiring a criminal conviction before the state or local governments can seize someone's property.

More states – and the federal government – need to follow the lead of Nebraska, Montana and New Mexico in protecting property owners who haven't committed any crimes.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-24/civil-asset-forfeiture-is-the-opposite-of-innocent-until-proven-guilty

Fortification, plea bargain, etc stops you from elective post

If you didn't do anything wrong why make such a plea bargain with the law

Thanksful:
Fortification, plea bargain, etc stops you from elective post

At where? Usa or Nigeria?

FarahAideed:
If you didn't do anything wrong why make such a plea bargain with the law

If he committed the offense why forfeiture instead of sentencing?

Thanksful:
Fortification, plea bargain, etc stops you from elective post

There was no Plea Bargain lol

Y

FarahAideed:
If you didn't do anything wrong why make such a plea bargain with the law

Most of you Obi supporters are really daft

He was never charged for any crime in the first place and Plea Bargain can only happen after you have been confirmed guilty.

Even if you enterred a Plea bargain in the US, you will still be sentence.

When the Government has a strong case, the Government may offer the defendant a plea deal to avoid trial and perhaps reduce his exposure to a more lengthy sentence.

A defendant may only plead guilty if they actually committed the crime and admits to doing so in open court before the judge. When the defendant admits to the crime, they agree they are guilty and they agree that they may be “sentenced” by the judge presiding over the court — the only person authorized to impose a sentence. Sometimes the Government will agree, as part of a plea agreement, not to recommend an enhanced sentence (such as additional time in prison for certain reasons) but it is left up to the judge to determine how the defendant will be punished.

If a defendant pleads guilty, there is no trial, but the next step is to prepare for a sentencing hearing.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/pleabargaining#:~:text=When%20the%20Government%20has%20a,open%20court%20before%20the%20judge.



A plea bargain won't save you from sentencing in the US, it will just save everyone time for standing for trial and move the process up to sentencing by the judge and perhaps reduce the punishment and sentencing.

was Tinubu ever sentenced for any crime in the US by any judge ? what happened was out of court settlement and forfeiture of some funds. All the money in the accounts affected was 1.4 million dollar and he only lost 460,000$ you think the US Justice system will let someone guilty of drug dealing to get away with more than half of his money ?

YouandiAllofus:
It would amount to crime against humanity if you are made to forfeit a legally acquired asset or property by a state without any wrong doing and there is no compesation. It is so in my opinnion because it is a government vs an individual.

What is happening to most of the Obedients is that they have been brainwashed to believe the US justice system is so perfect and you can not lose anything to the US government unless you are guilty.


Go and google civic Judicial Forfeiture in the US

Elemosho478:


What is happening to most of the Obedients is that they have been brainwashed to believe the US justice system is so perfect and you can not lose anything the government unless you are guilty.


Go and google civic Judicial Forfeiture in the US

Is the US really such a place? where people forfeit legally acquired properties without any wrong doing? (civic judicial forfeiture!?)

YouandiAllofus:
Is the US really such a place? where people forfeit legally acquired properties without any wrong doing? (civic judicial forfeiture!?)

Google about it

Law enforcement agencies can seize your asset with Civic Judicial Forfeiture in the US, after the seizure you can later go to court to challenge it.

That's exactly what happened to Tinubu, they freezed 1.4 million dollars in his account with civic Judicial forfeiture because they linked it to drug. He was not even charged for any crime in the first place and he later went to challenge the forfeiture at the court but they settled out of court and Tinubu let them have 460,000$ out of the 1.4 million dollars because the law agency and Tinubu could not predict the outcome if they continue with the case.

You think US government will let a guilty drug dealer get away with half of his funds?

Elemosho478:



There is no Plea Bargain lol

I am not talking about Tinubu. I am talking about anyone

helinues:


At where? Usa or Nigeria?

Anywhere so far you are a Nigerian

This will trend for Obidients for some time until they lose and go to another thing to masturbate again.

Civil Judicial Forfeiture An in rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense. Unlike criminal forfeiture, there is no criminal conviction required, although the government is still required to prove in court that the property was linked to criminal activity. The proceeding allows the court to gather anyone with an interest in the property in the same case and resolve all the issues with the property at one time. In a civil forfeiture case, the government is the plaintiff, the property is the defendant, and any person who claims an interest in the property is a claimant. Civil forfeiture allows the government to file cases against property that would not be reachable through criminal forfeiture, such as property of criminals located outside the United States, including terrorists, and fugitives. Civil forfeiture also permits recovery of assets held by deceased defendants or where no defendant can be identified.

Elemosho478:



Google about it

Law enforcement agencies can seize your asset with Civic Judicial Forfeiture in the US, after the seizure you can later go to court to challenge it.

That's exactly what happened to Tinubu, they freezed 1.4 million dollars in his account with civic Judicial forfeiture because they linked it to drug. He was not even charged for any crime in the first place and he later went to challenge the forfeiture at the court but they settled out of court and Tinubu let them have 460,000$ out of the 1.4 million dollars because the law agency and Tinubu could not predict the outcome if they continue with the case.

You think US government will let a guilty drug dealer get away with half of his funds?

got that amount of money from his less than 10 000 usd salary 🤔🤔 what was his tax return like.

Y