Essay On Civil Asset Forfeiture

In the United States “civil forfeiture" is a legal procedure which might be brought during or after criminal accusations are recorded in the court. It is a court proceeding recorded against a property or against a person which allows law enforcement to take away cash and or property. Based on the article End of Forfeiture (2017), 87% of federal forfeitures were not criminals but civil, the government didn’t have to convict or charge anyone to take the property. Once the U.S. Lawyer's Office gets a referral from a seizing organization of a seized resource case, that office has 90 days to either document a civil legal case or incorporate the seized resource in a criminal arraignment and name it for criminal Forfeiture. On the off chance that a civil case is not documented within those 90 days, the CAFRA "capital punishment" will keep the United States from continuously recording a civil Forfeiture case. If the advantage is incorporated into a prosecution and the respondent is later vindicated or has a conviction turned around to offer, the property can't be surrendered. Thus, numerous U.S. prosecutors record a suspicious civil forfeiture activity and incorporate the property for criminal forfeiture in an arraignment (Weld, n.d, 2011.).

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.

Even though civil forfeiture is a practice that happens all around the United States, it is a system that many say the police are able to abuse for their own profit. There have been numerous cases where many individuals have been locked in legal battles with the United States government trying to prove that their assets are indeed innocent and not involved with any crimes. Many feel that the civil forfeiture is a form of “policing for profit” especially since many of the assets are used under the Equitable Sharing Program. (Crawford) police can stop motorists, possibly under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant,

Dating back to Colonial America, tax collectors were abusing their rights with general warrants by conducting illegal searches, and seizing individuals without probable cause or evidence of wrongdoings (Guide, 2015). Our founding fathers established the Fourth Amendment on December 15th 1791, and would further protect each citizen with the right to search and seizure. However, many cases have claimed illegal searches and seizures, resulting in numerous lawsuits where evidence was obtained. Many factors fall under search and seizure, from homes and airports to a single lawn. The purpose of this paper will be to inform the reader of the legal definition of the

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

The most controversial aspect of the fourth amendment is the debate over what constitutes as a legitimate search. Since the amendment’s addition to the constitution on December 15, 1791, citizens have questioned police action. The case of United States vs. Jacobsen states that “A seizure of property occurs when the government meaningfully interferes with a person’s possessory interest.”

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

In recent times there has been a growing number of concerns regarding the way police officers perform arrests. Along with these arrests are searches conducted by officers which can sometimes be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects its citizens by giving “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (U.S. Const., amend. IV). This amendment aims to prevent officers from conducting random searches of a citizens’ property and aims to give them a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general warrants, British soldiers were allowed to enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves. The policy was reminiscent of today’s civil asset forfeiture laws.”(Balko, R, 2013) The civil asset forfeiture statute is an asset seizure of possessions that are alleged proceeds from criminal activity. Criminal activity over the decades had developed and more organized. Criminals would get their mandatory minimum sentence and the crime enterprise would just continue, but legislators’ passed a statute to dismantle entire criminal organizations and it’s known as Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations or R.I.C.O. Passed in 1970 it was used in the prosecution of Sicilian mafia in New York city. Instead of prosecuting criminals individually such as solders and capo, it was effective in shutting down entire criminal organizations. R.I.C.O statute appeared to be effective on the war on drugs. The combination of the two policies provided incentives to battle the war on drug. Assets were disseminated among various law enforcement departments, putting more officers on the streets, obtaining newer police vehicles and countless equipment for law

Each year in the United States federal, state, and local law enforcement officials seize billions dollars of cash and property from individuals who are not, necessarily, convicted or even charged with a crime. Seizures made under these laws are called civil asset forfeiture (CAF) seizures or civil judicial forfeiture seizures. Changes in civil asset forfeiture laws have over the last 4 decades have increased the power of local governments to supplement law enforcement budgets and crack down on crime. Most police departments across the nation are able to keep, use, and sell seized property at their

Larceny is defined as the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the takers own use. To bluntly say it, larceny is stealing from others. No matter what the motives or reasons behind stealing are, it is still wrong. I imagine there is a multitude of motives for someone to convince himself or herself that it is worth the risk to steal something. Some other people might also not have the conscience to feel wrong for stealing. A large part of this is because people do not understand who or what they are harming when they steal. It is very common to become self-indulged and only worry about your problems. Even after being caught someone might only feel

Over the past two years, corporate America has endured a plethora of fraudulent acts committed by those of high status within their respective corporations, most of which involve internal fraud. Internal fraud has two main aspects, misappropriation of assets and fraudulent financial reporting, with the focus of this discussion lying within the former. Misappropriation of assets is defined as fraud for personal gain. It is the most common type of fraud found among employees and frequently includes theft of cash and inventory.