United States of America v. $11,000.00 in United States Currency

[MachineGhost]

[quote=https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/c ... les-clarke]Under the law, a police officer only needs probable cause to take someone's property or cash because he felt it was in some way gained or meant for criminal activity. After that, it's on the property owner to prove law enforcement wrong.

If challenged, the government needs to show a preponderance of evidence that the property has substantial connection to criminal activity. So in Clarke's case, the government would need to show that the money was linked to illicit activity — it either came from selling illicit drugs, or it was intended to buy illicit drugs.

Requiring only preponderance of evidence is an extremely low standard. In typical criminal cases, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime. But in civil forfeiture cases, the government only has to show that it's more likely than not that the property was intended to buy drugs or obtained from selling drugs.

The bar is so low in part because it's the property itself on trial, not the person whose property was taken — and due process rights cover people, not property. So in Clarke's situation, the case is literally called United States of America v. $11,000.00 in United States Currency. (No, this is not a joke.)

"Originally, it was designed for situations in which the court would not have jurisdiction over the person," Darpana Sheth, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, said. "So it's an action on the property itself."

This is unlike criminal forfeiture cases, in which people are convicted of crimes before their property is taken.

With the bar set so low, the question in Clarke's case is whether the government's claim of merely smelling marijuana on his bags is enough to show the cash he had on him was more likely than not meant to buy drugs or gained from selling them. Sheth said courts have come down different ways on whether the smell of a drug is enough evidence in these cases. "That's what we'll be litigating," she said. "We certainly don't think that should be enough."

Specifically, Clarke's defense claims the government has to show that the money was in some way attached to trafficking, not just prior pot use. But, Sheth conceded, this is also a topic that's being debated in court — and, despite the Institute for Justice's confidence, it's possible they'll lose due to the low threshold the government needs to meet.[/quote]

[quote=https://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/c ... les-clarke]
By taking Clarke's case, the Institute for Justice is hoping to combat not just the one injustice Clarke felt he suffered, but the civil forfeiture laws that drive all these other cases as well. So they're attaching a broader constitutional argument to the case: that the Justice Department shouldn't be able to — as it does today — choose where to spend the seized money, because that gives the executive branch appropriations powers left to Congress in the Constitution.

"Under the Appropriations Clause, Congress is the only branch that has the power to appropriate money," Sheth said. "That's designed to protect people. So if Congress — the most representative branch — holds the purse strings, then people are actually accountable to how that money is spent."

This is an argument that's been advanced by other critics of civil forfeiture, including the Drug Policy Alliance. It's unclear whether it can win in courts, and whether it would strike down civil forfeiture laws. But for organizations like the Institute for Justice, it's the best chance to take out a program that they believe is doing a lot of harm — and that lawmakers just aren't doing much about.

"It's ridiculous. I think it needs to change," Clarke said. "I don't think the cops should be allowed to take somebody's money if they haven't committed any crime. We're treating innocent people like criminals."
[/quote]

[I Shrugged]

Institute for Justice is a very worthy charitable cause to contribute to, IMO.  They are making a lot of progress fighting this nonsense in courts.

[MediumTex]

This is a simple case of robbery, except the thieves are agents of the government.

[MachineGhost]

This is a simple case of robbery, except the thieves are agents of the government.

I was going to post it under "When the cops are the criminals", but thought it deserved its own thread.

[MachineGhost]

Institute for Justice is a very worthy charitable cause to contribute to, IMO.  They are making a lot of progress fighting this nonsense in courts.

IFJ is where the ideology of libertarianism meets the real world.  It's fantastic!

And yet, they're the only ones that walk the talk and keep their integrity intact.  I think that speaks volumes to how corrupt everything truly has become.