“”I've been a cop for five years.. and I have worked many wrecks where the person was high on marijuana...Sure. Let's give out another intoxicant. The difference between marijuana and alcohol is that marijuana stays longer in your system. (average 30 days from one marijuana cigarette). Wrong on this next statement:
quote:
Now with asset forfeiture, you can loose your house or car without a Court Order or review if you are involed with any illegal drugs, and even if you did not know that drugs were even an issue (like if a friend had drugs on them without your knowelege).
Not in the USA! Sorry..but you need to go thru a civil process, and need a court order to seize assets. The law enforcement agency splits the assets with the state, district attorneys office, and any other agencies involved in the seizure.”“”
__________________________________________________________________
I must disagree. The governments own statistics show that accidents with pot were in conjunction with other drugs, like alcohol. However not with pot alone (driver error? You don't have to be hight on pot for driver error).
One study, in essence, tested each of its thirty-six subjects--marijuana-users where were also "familiar with the effects of alcohol"--three times: once, as a control, under the influence of no drug at all; once with a "normal social high" dose of marijuana; and once with two large drinks of alcohol, which were intended to put his blood-alcohol level at approximately .10 percent (in most states the presumptive level for drunken driving is at .15 percent). In each test the subject "drove" the simulator for three periods of twenty-three minutes beginning one half hour, two and a half hours, and four hours after the "drug" use. Using standard statistical techniques, the author of the paper determined that there was no significant difference between the performance under the influence of marijuana and under no drug at all but that there was a considerable difference between these two and the performance under alcohol." From "Marijuana The New Prohibition" 1970 by Professor John Kaplan pp. 293 - 294 (pb.) Cannabis does not impair driving performance as much as alcohol
I too work for a government agency.
Two main categories of forfeiture statutes exist in today’’s legal system: criminal forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture concerns the seizure of property presumed to have a relation to a crime or to be obtained as a consequence of criminal activity. No determination of criminal guilt is necessary to trigger a civil asset forfeiture, which is in rem, or against property, in nature.
The second category involves criminal forfeitures, which are primarily in personam——against the person——in nature. A criminal forfeiture results after a conviction for the crime to which the forfeited property is related. This can occur upon a showing that the property is contraband (illegally obtained, obtained through the profit from a crime, or involved as an instrument of the underlying offense), as a consequence of sentencing, or as a condition of a plea bargain. Fewer injustices are likely to result in this category of forfeiture, given the more protective procedural safeguards in criminal prosecutions.
Nonetheless, several concerns arise in the analysis of criminal forfeiture laws. Eighth Amendment protections from excessive fines and the implied protection against disproportionate punishments must be considered. In fact, on June 22, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a violation of a customs law requiring reporting of more than $10,000 in cash transported across the border warranted a forfeiture of $357,144 in lawfully obtained cash carried by the defendants. Finding the forfeiture disproportionately high given the nature of the violation and limiting their opinion to the distinct issue of criminal forfeiture, the Court held for the first time that a criminal forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines clause.
Though these and other problems arise in both categories of forfeitures, their significance to the criminal category lies primarily beyond the scope of this report. Criminal forfeiture is particularly relevant to this report’’s analysis, however, when innocent owners or co-owners of property are punished as a result of such forfeitures.
“”The Framers of the United States Constitution understood that freedom depends upon the vigorous protection of private property rights and that this protection was therefore the most sacred obligation of government. However, despite Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, recent years have witnessed a massive expansion of a legal practice known as "asset forfeiture," which allows government to violate the very property rights it is charged with protecting.
Hundreds of asset forfeiture laws——many of them intended to stop illegal drug trafficking——give state and federal law enforcement agents the power to seize property even without proof of the owners’’ guilt in a criminal trial because, in many cases, the government considers the property itself to be the criminal.
Use of forfeiture by authorities has exploded. In Michigan alone, law enforcement agents in a recent year used forfeiture laws in 9,770 instances to seize more than $14 million in private property.
This Mackinac Center for Public Policy report examines the practice of asset forfeiture in Michigan and recommends reforms to help authorities prosecute criminals while still protecting the property rights of innocent citizens and preserving the freedom and due process rights of everyone.
Michigan and federal policy makers should
Remove incentives for law enforcement agencies to employ asset forfeiture. End the twin practices of allowing law enforcement agencies to profit from the sale of the assets they seize and paying informants to provide information to help build forfeiture cases.
End federal "adoption" of state forfeiture cases. State law enforcement agents should be prohibited from asking federal agents to "adopt" forfeiture cases. Michigan property owners should not have to fight the full resources of the federal government, whose forfeiture laws provide less of a barrier to asset seizure.
Shift the burden of proof from property owners to government. Property owners must currently establish the "innocence" of their property once it has been seized. Government should be required to show proof that disputed property is connected to illegal activity before it can be seized.
Establish nexus and proportionality requirements for forfeiture. Current law should be changed to require government to show connection between specific property and a crime for which guilt has been found. The amount of property seized should be in proportion to the crime committed by its owner.
Eliminate legal hurdles to citizens’’ ability to challenge forfeiture. Lawmakers should extend the length of time citizens are given to file claims to seized property and eliminate the requirement that they post bond to do so. Successful claimants should be reimbursed by the government for expenses incurred during forfeiture proceedings.
Require law enforcement agents to publicly justify forfeiture proceedings. Law enforcement agencies should be required to publish an explanation each time they seize and retain private property. The resulting public awareness will encourage self-restraint on the part of law enforcement agencies.
Enact protections against forfeiture for innocent owners of property. Language in forfeiture statutes should be strengthened to ensure that property owners who have not participated in, or acquiesced to, a crime committed with their property are not punished with forfeiture.
Give third-party creditors the chance to recover seized property. Innocent third parties with an interest in seized property, such as lien holders, should be given a judicial remedy to recover against the government.
Ensure that asset forfeiture reforms do not include an expanded definition of criminal behavior. If asset forfeiture is allowed only upon proof of a related crime, lawmakers should resist any urge to broaden the definition of criminal behavior to include currently noncriminal activities.
The principles of private property, limited government, and individual liberty that America’’s founders cherished must be preserved for all generations. These reforms at the state and federal levels will help guarantee that the citizens of Michigan continue to enjoy the benefits of those principles and remain protected from unjustified and arbitrary seizure of their personal possessions.”“
