Asset seizures fuel police spending

Re:Asset seizures fuel police spending by PaulAJ on Sunday October 12, 2014 @11:11AM (#8445472)

This article is a distraction from the real issue. Most of the spending (including the oft-repeated $225 for "Sparkles the clown") is legitimate. The process of civil forfeiture, on the other hand, is a clear violation of the constitution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Asset seizures fuel police spending by TillE on Sunday October 12, 2014 @11:28AM (#8445524)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened to the fourth and fifth amendments. Both prohibit arbitrary seizure of property.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Asset seizures fuel police spending by readerrrr on Sunday October 12, 2014 @11:47AM (#8445577)

Simple; the people affected are not wealthy and, especially after their money is taken, cannot take the process to courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Asset seizures fuel police spending by martincmartin on Sunday October 12, 2014 @01:33PM (#8445932)

There have been cases that have gone all the way to the supreme court, including a decision in February of this year:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/ci...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Asset seizures fuel police spending by baddox on Sunday October 12, 2014 @01:45PM (#8445973)

Yeah, it turns out that a piece of paper cannot magically enforce itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]