A U.S. district judge declared Albuquerque's civil asset forfeiture program unconstitutional.
Federal judge James O. Browning found that seizing property from those suspected of a crime, even before a legal judgment had been rendered, violated the property owner's legal right to the presumption of innocence. The law placed the burden on citizens to absolve themselves from crimes of which they're accused, even if they had not been charged. He also held that the program’s funds collection, which bankrolls its budget, enticed law enforcement officials to work for personal benefit rather than for civilian protection.
"The City of Albuquerque has an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases, because, in practice, the forfeiture program sets its own budget and can spend, without meaningful oversight, all of the excess funds it raises from previous years," Browning, who sits on the District Court of New Mexico, wrote in an order Saturday.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
11 comments:
Dave T: I agree that it is unconstitutional on the merits aforementioned. People need to start following the laws as written instead of changing them to their own interpretation. Nothing complicated about this other than overzealous law enforcement trying to gain more power than is necessary.
This should have been done when instant property forfeiture was first started. Thank you, Judge!
I'm glad to see the federal bench finally coming in line with the intent of the U.S. Constitution as written. Even as it is vague in some respects, the document was intended to safeguard the populous from un-scrupulous Sheriffs who can't regulate their personnel without having the sum total of the County Treasury at their disposal.
Having been a police officer I am against pre-judgment. That's the juries job, and also legalized seizure to make a presumption of guilt
to insure conviction.
These facts presented, this also encourages overzealous road cops to over flex their authority. Under 'The Carroll Doctrine' a search by police unless granted authority is obtained is 'Fruit of a poison tree' and subsequently in-admissible. However, when a driver or other suspect refuses; the Police twist this legal right into probable cause for a warrant. That's the part I feel wrong. I myself won't grant the Police Carte Blanc authority unless a third party unbiased witness is present or legal council. The motive behind this is Police will 'LIE' to make a case. If I knew of an officer who I was sure used this tactic, right away I severed ANY contact with them because there was an eraser on my pencils. To make a case over my integrity on the witness stand because I made a mistake wasn't ever in the cards and I was never accused of perjury at any trial or proceedings.
I found my conscience being clean was far more satisfying than an extra stripe I didn't really deserve. I think Baltimore City P.D. is a monumental example of my theory.
Secondly, we DO NOT live in a 'Police State' and if there is evidence strong enough to charge, I trust the State Attorney enough to make the decision or the Grand Jury. Let's ALL play the game Fair. I realize this should be a tenet of society yet Washington, the Senate, and the House are exempt and I think ANY MAN OR WOMAN should realize there comes a day ALL are judged on their individual merit before The Allmighty. Not Fooled.... Bob Aswell
Well that is a start, lets get this in all states!!!!
How this travesty of justice went on for so long is a mystery. Was it pressure from police agencies, attorney generals, or the DOJ? One has to think that the Feds led the way.
Does this apply to seizure in all states? It should?
Let the drug dealers who have never worked a job or paid taxes keep their Mercedes, Cadillac, bank accounts, etc??? Oh yea and good luck recovering anything after they're convicted for their crimes. It certainly pays to be a criminal these days!
little Mikey Lewis and his goons take property all the time and not return same.
4:17 - As unfair as it might seem, the law has to be uniform throughout. We bitch about two sets of laws but cheer when those morph into three.
Think about all of those presumptions of guilt when innocent people are divested of their cash on the way to pay a mortgage off, or buy a tractor, or whatever. Some of them are still waiting for their money to be returned, when it shouldn't have been stolen in the first place.
6:15 - were any of the people not charged with a crime that had their property taken from? No. Because as part of the plea deal or finding of guilt, a defendant is required to relinquish the property and judge has to order the same before the item/s (cash, cars, boats, whatever is used or gained from their crimes) can be transferred to the Sheriff's Office as owner. They then can convert said property to their use, or auction it off on govdeals and use the proceeds from there. Have you seen their marked police car (maybe 2?) marked on the back "this car bought with funds seized from a drug dealer"? It's not like they are doing what other agencies like TSA, DEA and other 3 letter alphabet agencies are doing, where they seize the property on suspicion it's being used illegally. The Sheriff's Office builds a drug case, usually distribution, seizes a large sum of money, drugs, scales, items indicative of drug sales from say, a traffic stop (yes, some drug couriers use cars and trucks to move drugs around). It may even lead to a search warrant of a house, where more drugs, cash, etc are seized. The investigation leads them to discover the suspect also purchased that 2016 Nissan Pathfinder in cash. Hmmmm. Yeah, probably from proceeds of the drug sales. Then charges are filed. It goes to trial. If the person pleads guilty or is found guilty by judge or jury, the judge stipulates the forfeiture of items to be turned over to the Sheriff's Office. But nice try though...
Post a Comment