![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lupin5thvia https://ift.tt/35bAIGa
theactualcluegirl:
watchmebitch:
sinlovesmarvel:
royalturkeyz:
kahavave:
izzyb4642:
fempuxk:
What’s happening
They’re referencing civil asset forfeiture, a process by which (essentially) the state can take your stuff if they believe said stuff was involved in a crime and you have to demonstrate that it wasn’t involved in a crime nor was it intended to be involved in a crime (emphasis here; because the item is being charged, not a person, it is guilty until proven innocent). Depending on whether a judge determine the suspicion was reasonable or not, you may have to pay legal fees to get your stuff back.
IE; if a cop pulls you over, searches your car, finds 200$, and thinks you got it by selling drugs he’s allowed to take it and you have a couple months to prove that you didn’t get it by selling drugs otherwise the department gets to keep it. And if the judge agrees that taking the money in the first place was reasonable then to get it back you may have to pay the court.
Long Story short cops can legally mug you.
Civil Forfeiture covered on Last Week Tonight
Hey guys! The above sources are great and informative BUT please note that there was a recent development in this area handed down from the Supreme Court.
NYTimes article explaining the opinion is linked, but tl;dr: the limits on “excessive fines” in the 8th amendment now apply to civil forfeiture. We don’t know exactly where the limit is yet, because (a) this is a recent decision so there isn’t a lot of case law applying it and (b) SCOTUS isn’t well known for handing down extremely explicit guidelines.
The case before the court involved a seizure worth four times as much as the maximum possible fine due, and the court didn’t rule on whether that qualified as “excessive.” They instead sent the case back down to the lower court with instructions to decide, which is pretty typical.
So what you’re saying is, through judicious loophole use, the NYPD could, per se, seize Trump Towers under suspicion of its having been used international money laundering, and then it would be up to Trumperdink to prove, in court, by showing his finance records, that it wasn’t?
theactualcluegirl:
watchmebitch:
sinlovesmarvel:
royalturkeyz:
kahavave:
izzyb4642:
fempuxk:
What’s happening
They’re referencing civil asset forfeiture, a process by which (essentially) the state can take your stuff if they believe said stuff was involved in a crime and you have to demonstrate that it wasn’t involved in a crime nor was it intended to be involved in a crime (emphasis here; because the item is being charged, not a person, it is guilty until proven innocent). Depending on whether a judge determine the suspicion was reasonable or not, you may have to pay legal fees to get your stuff back.
IE; if a cop pulls you over, searches your car, finds 200$, and thinks you got it by selling drugs he’s allowed to take it and you have a couple months to prove that you didn’t get it by selling drugs otherwise the department gets to keep it. And if the judge agrees that taking the money in the first place was reasonable then to get it back you may have to pay the court.
Long Story short cops can legally mug you.
Civil Forfeiture covered on Last Week Tonight
Hey guys! The above sources are great and informative BUT please note that there was a recent development in this area handed down from the Supreme Court.
NYTimes article explaining the opinion is linked, but tl;dr: the limits on “excessive fines” in the 8th amendment now apply to civil forfeiture. We don’t know exactly where the limit is yet, because (a) this is a recent decision so there isn’t a lot of case law applying it and (b) SCOTUS isn’t well known for handing down extremely explicit guidelines.
The case before the court involved a seizure worth four times as much as the maximum possible fine due, and the court didn’t rule on whether that qualified as “excessive.” They instead sent the case back down to the lower court with instructions to decide, which is pretty typical.
So what you’re saying is, through judicious loophole use, the NYPD could, per se, seize Trump Towers under suspicion of its having been used international money laundering, and then it would be up to Trumperdink to prove, in court, by showing his finance records, that it wasn’t?
