The appalling Constitution-bending practice by which law enforcement agencies have for years seized private property under the presumption it is the product of criminal activity without ever having to go the bothersome effort of actually, you know, obtaining a criminal conviction continues apace.
The latest ignoble example of what is called civil asset forfeiture comes to us from Texas in the case of Leonard v. Texas.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case because the attorneys for Lisa Olivia Leonard, whose $200,000 in cash was confiscated when her son was detained during a traffic stop, were arguing the seizure violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, but they had failed to make that argument before the lower courts. So, it was not yet ripe for the high court.
The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”
In April of 2013, a police officer stopped James Leonard for a traffic infraction, and, during a search a safe was found in the trunk. Leonard told police the safe belonged to his mother. After a search warrant was obtained, police found the safe contained $201,100 and a bill of sale for a home in Pennsylvania.
Texas filed for civil forfeiture of the money, claiming it was the profits from illegal drug sales, though Lisa Leonard said the money was from the sale of a house. A trial court and an appellate court did not believe that, even though no one was convicted of a crime.
Though he agreed the court should not yet hear the case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a six-page commentary on the evils of civil asset forfeiture.
Justice Thomas said of civil asset forfeitures, “This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. According to one nationally publicized report, for example, police in the town of Tenaha, Texas, regularly seized the property of out-of-town drivers passing through and collaborated with the district attorney to coerce them into signing waivers of their property rights. …In one case, local officials threatened to file unsubstantiated felony charges against a Latino driver and his girlfriend and to place their children in foster care unless they signed a waiver.”Nevada has its own record of suspect civil asset forfeiture cases. Over a two-year period Humboldt County deputies seized $180,000 in cash from motorists.
In one case a dashboard camera caught a deputy seizing $50,000 from a man who claimed he won it at a casino. “You’ll burn it up in attorney fees before we give it back to you,” the deputy said. The man was threatened with having his car impounded, too, if he did not cooperate and waive his rights.
Some states have passed laws to curb the extortionate practice by police by requiring that an actual criminal conviction before assets may be taken.
During the 2015 legislative session Republican state Sens. Don Gustavson of Sparks and James Settelmeyer of Minden sponsored a bill that would have established just such a requirement, but by the time the bill came out of the legislative sausage grinder it merely required police agencies to report their confiscations to the state and specifically declared convictions would not be necessary.
No one has deigned to try to challenged civil asset forfeitures this year in Carson City, but someone should.
— TM
If you are going to post a “quote” – post the entire quote – not just the parts that support your view. “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …” . ( … ) is not a correct quote.
Les
What? So this person is writing about an unconstitutional act and you check their grammer? You need some serious help. No wonder we are in bad shape! The grammer is more important than the content!
In all fairness, grammar can completely change the tone and context.
She stated “post the entire quote – not just the parts that support your view.”
How would it look if I took your comment and quoted only what I felt?
Grammar: the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in a sentence. It appears that the quote is not ‘correct’ here because it is not complete, and therefore misleading within the context of the article. In other words, it isn’t the grammar that is being called out, it is the limited quote suggesting a different meaning than originally intended by the author (and the constitution). Or maybe I’m wrong.
However, I agree that a full quote might be most appropriate here. This is what’s called splitting hairs.
Wheener, again commenting without your real name! What you have to say doesnt matter. You are just gutless air that has no purpose except to bring up pointless arguments that defend stupidity! Comment with your name or dont comment.
EDITOR PLEASE NOTE: This is what an internet TROLL looks like – using your website for targeted personal attacks. Mr. Porter Is apparently most interested in delivering subjective fixations and attacks against others commenting, or commenting simply to invite such an opportunity. Clearly, personal protection from fixated and irrational TROLLS is one of the reasons you provide the opportunity for optional screen names. Please monitor and manage this sight to deter future unsolicited, unrelated attacks which interrupt and distract from rational discourse.