He who carries around 20 grand in small bills may have a need to have his money and his brand new Mercedes seized and made to prove where he got it. Especially if he never had to pay taxes in his life. Yes they need to be more selective how and when they use this power, but don't just take away one of the best tools police have to combat these drug dealers.[
The burden of proof should always be on the accuser and not on the accused. Funding law enforcement with seizure is like funding an army with pillage and plunder.
Cro, do you have any basis for this observation other than your "gut feeling"? (I've got nothing against gut feelings, I rely on them occasionally myself) I'm not picking on you, and I won't ever do that. But understand, I am first and foremost a Constitutional Scholar. And secondly, I am a criminal lawyer who basically defends high profile drug crimes. So, I got a decent set of boots on so to speak. First, no drug dealer gives (oh, let's Hoot this one..."shivs a git" ) about money and cars. That's regular working man thinking. These guys deal in tons of cash. Lose a car? Nada. Lose fifty grand? Cost of doing business. Get locked up? Business over. You couldn't be more wrong. Civil forfeiture hurts the innocent guys, the little guys. The big guys just throw it on the balance sheet. Means nothing.Civil forfeiture undeniably provides both a deterrent against crime and as a measure of punishment for the criminal. Many criminals fear the loss of their vacation homes, fancy cars, businesses and bloated bank accounts far more than the prospect of a jail sentence.
I just caught that. I'm slow tonight. Hell, it's Friday.I tried to spell it your way, but the checker keeps changing it