It's more like: any assets taken by civil asset forfeiture should fund civics classes so that the people that are having their property stolen know just how anti-American that is.

I think they know. If you polled the country a tiny fraction would say that they think it's a good thing.

It depends on how you frame the question. Asking "Should the police be allowed to seize large amounts of cash from a suspicious-looking (white guy/black guy/latino/hobo/terrorist/banker/politician)" will most likely get you a "yes" answer, as long as you pick the right target for your audience.

Civil forfeiture is a foundational part of the American way. We traded in humans at the start of our country. That has never stopped. Instead of being African Americans (or Black people generally) in current reality it's... our Black communities who we target and throw in prison which is the only exception.

Then look at Capitalism. Exploiting labor to drain any opportunity of wealth building from the working class and transferring it to those with wealth.

People have this twisted idea that America is a moral or ethical place. It's not. We live in a toxic culture and it has always been and it will continue to be. There is no escape.

If I check a suitcase full of money on my flight, or if I pass it through TSA security, I must consent to being searched (without a warrant) in order to fly.

It's not like I have a suitcase of money in my trunk and I've been pulled over by the police without cause and I can refuse to give consent.

Therefore I don't think the 4 amendment applies.

Isn't the argument for CAF that the mere possession of the large sum of money is just cause to confiscate it? That's why a time limit would work. DUring that time period, they could try to get a warrant. The judge would not give a warrant if that is the only evidence. Then the assets would be returned.

The Bill of Rights is a patchwork of conditional, wishy-washy broken promises, isn't it?

If I sign up for an account on Facebook, then I agree to waive my first-amendment rights.

If I walk into any number of stores or churches or government buildings, I agree to waive my second-amendment rights.

Sixth amendment? Just keep redefining "speedy" and make enough excuses for trials delayed and justice denied.

Tenth Amendment? If a state passes a law judged odious by the Federal Government, then kiss your funding sources bye-bye!

A lot of your complaints are with the libertarian nature of our government.

The constitution protects private dictators from interference by the government, not citizens from interference by private dictators. It’s an important distinction to remember in the USA

How does signing up for an account waive my 1st amendment rights?

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't.

It depends on how you define the free speech and how free it is.

You can say anything you want "in the public square" or "with a free press".

For example, go to the public library, or a government building, and they will have a little patch of land designated as the "Free Speech Z0ne" where Jehovah's witnesses and PETA fanatics camp out and hold up signs and vie for your attention.

You can go on Facebook and say stuff, but that's not "First Amendment Free Speech", that's a "private platform" and Facebook's standards control your speech there, not the First Amendment.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

This xkcd is the stupidest one in existence. I wish he would just delete it.

I am sorry but you will never convince me that private companies should have more power than the government. It's such an idiotic premise on so many levels and it blows my mind that people like you still come around with that bullshit xkcd comic as if it means anything or is a sound argument for censorship.

You don't have any first amendment rights on facebook at all, nor are they required to respect the spirit of the first amendment as a private entity.

Again your 2nd amendments can not supercede my right to keep gunners off my property. It's my property not yours. You can walk around all day with your 50 cal rifle on your property and (lots of ) public land, depending on the state

I could go on...

You don't waive your first amendment rights when you sign up for Facebook. The first amendment protects you from the government in respect to freedom of speech. Private corporations can restrict your speech and that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Relevant XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

It also regularly happens that people are pulled over and subject to forfeiture. The first time I heard of it, it was an article about someone who was driving to pick up a car they had agreed to purchase over the internet. They had, iirc, something like $20k in their trunk, and the police seized it in a traffic stop.

4A is search and seizure.

You can consent to searches all you want without giving up your rights to not have your stuff taken.

Right. Your point is obvious and correct.

But. You naively assume judicial philosophy must be bound by rules, logic, common sense, ethics, public interest, or precedent.

The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. Further, property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.

Worse, the rules for civil forfeiture are flipped. Whereas people charged in criminal court are presumed innocent until proven guilty, somehow property must be proven innocent. Apparently courts can prove a negative, even if logic cannot.

IANAL. Trying to grok the judicial philosophies of the r/iamverysmart reactionaries breaks my brain. These helped me kinda grasp what's happening:

Bennis v. Michigan

"On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime."

https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/

Civil versus criminal forfeiture

"...assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

The entire point is that the judicial philisphy is obviously wrong.

The 4th ammendment gives individuals the protection from unreasonable siezure of property.

> The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself.

For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t.

No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.

As I said, IANAL. Sorry, I'm not following. This stuff breaks my brain.

> No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought...

Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? Vs some kind of cunning legal hack?

> Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)?

No, I'm saying criminal charges are only required for criminal types of sanctions, and what civil forfeiture does isn't in that scope.

That's not to say I think its fine: I think its often bad for policy reasons, and the details of some of the current uses (especially state/local seizures under federal law) have particular constitutional and policy issues.

They can use whatever justification they like, however the constitution is the highest law in the land and what they say does not override it's text. They are behaving illegally and if I was in power they would be punished.

Also while I am ensured of this right by the constitution, the passage "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." affirms that these rights are not granted but instead fundamental. Like the first amendment and others this is one of the "certain unalienable rights" granted by our creators.

> unreasonable searches and seizures

Unfortunately, unreasonable is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying it's right, but some could plausibly interpret civil forfeiture as "reasonable."