(ONNsociety) -- In today's fight against crime, law enforcement agents are cashing in on civil forfeiter laws -- statutes allowing government officials to seize a citizens money based on a suspicion of illegal connection to a crime. In such cases of civil forfeiter, a citizen never has to be convicted of a crime in order to have his money seized by the government, only that the law enforcement agent establish "preponderance of the evidence," which is easier to prove than a criminal case that establishes "beyond reasonable doubt."The intent of the laws are to stop the flow of "drug money" in order to slow the power of drug cartels. But, in many instances where citizens are shaken down without being convicted of a crime, it amounts to "highway robbery."
In fact, robbery is what is taking place on the highways of America everyday. Although, the culprits are not the usual suspects -- they are our trusted law enforcement agents.
Scenario: A man [Person A] is carrying $6,500 to purchase a vehicle from a friend [Person B] across town, who only will accept cash. The man [Person A] is a store owner who handles cash from the public on a daily basis. While in route, the man [Person A ] is pulled over for speeding by an officer [Person C]. The officer [Person C] asks: "Sir, do you have any weapons; illegal drugs; or large amounts of cash in the car that I should know about?" The man [Person A] answers: "Yes. I have $6,500 that I am intending to use to purchase a vehicle from a friend."
At this point the officer [Person C] calls in a K9, who is specially trained to detect the presence of drug residue. The animal arrives and detects the presence of drug residue on the man's [Person A] assets, thus establishing enough probable cause for the man [Person A] to have his assets seized by the State and turned over to the agents departmental budget. The man [Person A] will never be charged with a crime and probably won't see his money again, as the cost of litigation will far exceed the value of his assets. Furthermore, even if he had the assets to challenge the state, there is no guarantee he [Person A] will win his case.
The problem with civil forfeiter laws is that citizens are automatically assumed guilty until proven innocent -- they are assumed to be drug dealers. But, in all reality their civil rights have been violated.
Based on "eminent domain" and "due process" rights in the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot take personal property without due process. In this case the state has taken property without establishing guilt, and is protecting itself by the inability of the citizen to litigate the matter due to the lack of personal fortune.
In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act , or CAFRA, to combat the corruption that took place in the 1990's as a result of civil forfeiture laws. The government maintains that the reform worked, and that it raised the burden of proof before agents could seize property. However, I would argue that there remains a serious access issue, when normal citizens are unable to litigate such cases because of the high cost of securing sufficient legal counsel. This further violates a citizens right to due process, thus making the case to all-out ban civil forfeiture laws.
The issue amounts to an abuse of power, that is shielded by the labyrinth of the justice system. Civil forfeiter laws have allowed local law enforcement agents to run a legal criminal enterprise that needs to be heard by the high court to decide the constitutionality of these cases. I can only hope that the court decide what is right, and not punish honest citizens in the process of trying to deflate the power of drug cartels.
No comments:
Post a Comment