quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



You don't have to be convicted of a crime — or even accused of one — for police to seize your car or other property. It's legal. Several videos online are shedding some light on the controversial practice.

The practice is called civil asset forfeiture, and every year it brings cities millions of dollars in revenue, which often goes directly to the police budget. Police confiscate cars, jewelry, cash and homes they think are connected to crime.

But the people these things belong to may have done nothing wrong.

In one video posted by The New York Times, Harry S. Connelly, the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., gleefully describes how the city collects these "little goodies," calling it a "gold mine."
thumbnail
Dirty Money: Asset Seizures and Forfeitures
Seized Drug Assets Pad Police Budgets

He describes to a roomful of local officials from across the state how Las Cruces police officers waited outside a bar for a man they hoped would walk out drunk because they "could hardly wait" to get their hands on his 2008 Mercedes, which they then hoped to put up for auction.

"We could be czars," he tells the room. "We could own the city. We could be in the real estate business."

It is legal for law enforcement agencies to take property from people who haven't been convicted of a crime. [and sell it off]
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law

Property tax forfeitures work approx the same way!

How about that for land of the free?

Same goes for your home and other private property in the land of the 'free for gubmint to rob you blind']




So hows that constitution and 3 self correcting branches of gubmint workin for ya?

We the gubmint of the United Borg Collective of America.......
For the gubmint by the gubmint

Resistance is Futile!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



You don't have to be convicted of a crime — or even accused of one — for police to seize your car or other property. It's legal. Several videos online are shedding some light on the controversial practice.

The practice is called civil asset forfeiture, and every year it brings cities millions of dollars in revenue, which often goes directly to the police budget. Police confiscate cars, jewelry, cash and homes they think are connected to crime.

But the people these things belong to may have done nothing wrong.

In one video posted by The New York Times, Harry S. Connelly, the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., gleefully describes how the city collects these "little goodies," calling it a "gold mine."
thumbnail
Dirty Money: Asset Seizures and Forfeitures
Seized Drug Assets Pad Police Budgets

He describes to a roomful of local officials from across the state how Las Cruces police officers waited outside a bar for a man they hoped would walk out drunk because they "could hardly wait" to get their hands on his 2008 Mercedes, which they then hoped to put up for auction.

"We could be czars," he tells the room. "We could own the city. We could be in the real estate business."

It is legal for law enforcement agencies to take property from people who haven't been convicted of a crime. [and sell it off]
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law

Property tax forfeitures work approx the same way!

How about that for land of the free?

Same goes for your home and other private property in the land of the 'free for gubmint to rob you blind']




So hows that constitution and 3 self correcting branches of gubmint workin for ya?

We the gubmint of the United Borg Collective of America.......
For the gubmint by the gubmint

Resistance is Futile!

It's good. I buy lots of stuff from these auctions then resell on ebay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



You don't have to be convicted of a crime — or even accused of one — for police to seize your car or other property. It's legal. Several videos online are shedding some light on the controversial practice.

The practice is called civil asset forfeiture, and every year it brings cities millions of dollars in revenue, which often goes directly to the police budget. Police confiscate cars, jewelry, cash and homes they think are connected to crime.

But the people these things belong to may have done nothing wrong.

In one video posted by The New York Times, Harry S. Connelly, the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., gleefully describes how the city collects these "little goodies," calling it a "gold mine."
thumbnail
Dirty Money: Asset Seizures and Forfeitures
Seized Drug Assets Pad Police Budgets

He describes to a roomful of local officials from across the state how Las Cruces police officers waited outside a bar for a man they hoped would walk out drunk because they "could hardly wait" to get their hands on his 2008 Mercedes, which they then hoped to put up for auction.

"We could be czars," he tells the room. "We could own the city. We could be in the real estate business."

It is legal for law enforcement agencies to take property from people who haven't been convicted of a crime. [and sell it off]
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law

Property tax forfeitures work approx the same way!

How about that for land of the free?

Same goes for your home and other private property in the land of the 'free for gubmint to rob you blind']




So hows that constitution and 3 self correcting branches of gubmint workin for ya?

We the gubmint of the United Borg Collective of America.......
For the gubmint by the gubmint

Resistance is Futile!

It's good. I buy lots of stuff from these auctions then resell on ebay.

Where would we be without a strong democracy!

quote:

Held
: The Fifth Amendment requires
that the Government pay just
compensation when it takes personal
property, just as when it takes
real property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
It's good. I buy lots of stuff from these auctions then resell on ebay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I think Horne will be used to overthrow this practice.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_feah.pdf

quote:

Held
: The Fifth Amendment requires
that the Government pay just
compensation when it takes personal
property, just as when it takes
real property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I think Horne will be used to overthrow this practice.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_feah.pdf

quote:

Held
: The Fifth Amendment requires
that the Government pay just
compensation when it takes personal
property, just as when it takes
real property.

I like that case.
Maybe.
My gut tells me that it wont have a huge impact, especially on real property.
Look that speronis off grid case. The city gave her an evistion noticefor trumped up violations.
That and they do not wait till someones property taxes are over the point of no return, one people get a couple years behind even if its only 10% the value of the home these people have to forfeit. Its hiway robbery and people do not realize that if the government can do that they do not own their home, but merely rent it.

This confiscation practice has gone unchecked since the inception of this county. Pirates in blu with high priests in black robes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

There is no crime or forfeiture involved. This is about an agreement between the growers and the government that has been in force since 1949 where the government agreed to take the raisin surplus (in years when there was a surplus) to artificially prop up raisin prices.
However, raisin producers have, in certain years and depending on the amount of the surplus, not been fully compensated for their cost of producing the surplus. Hence the suit being filed, asking that the agreement be amended or discontinued.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/22/264055/at-supreme-court-raisin-rules.html

quote:

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG
, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.