Is the War on Drugs winding down?

[HerCrazierHalf]

Meanwhile the politicians are bent on abolishing civil asset forfeiture, further denying the prosecution the discovery and funding it needs to actually level the field.

There is not enough political will (read: not enough good people left in society) to change this situation.

It’s the abuses and perception of lies that brought about legalization/decriminalization. No one denies that drugs are bad, but the methods used often seem as bad if not worse. Civil forfeiture bypasses due process (the case is against the item, not the owner). Add to that the consensus that the gov lied or exaggerated the dangers of marijuana and you have the collapse of the drug war.

It’s not too dissimilar to the woes various institutions and authorities are facing.

 

[MarysLurker]

Civil forfeiture bypasses due process (the case is against the item, not the owner).

That is not true, even though many anti-forfeiture lobbyists claim as much.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits forfeiture of property without due process, which requires personal notice on everyone having an interest in the property, and that all such people have an opportunity to be heard and defend. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). In that case, the government tried to forfeit land belonging to Good without having served Good with process. The government served Good’s tenant and claimed that this was as good as serving Good. Sorry, not good enough. No personal notice, no forfeiture, the end.

Obviously, as a SCOTUS decision, Good is the law of the land. No federal or state forfeiture statute permits the government to forfeit property unless the prosecution has given personal notice to each person having an interest in the property.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

No federal or state forfeiture statute permits the government to forfeit property unless the prosecution has given personal notice to each person having an interest in the property.

My use of “due process” differs from the usage here. I should use a different phrase.

What I mean is that the ability to seize assets without having to obtain a criminal conviction makes “due process” into a farce. I’m not against seizing the means used to commit major crimes as long as there was a conviction and the property’s primary purpose was to facilitate the crime.

Basically, mom shouldn’t lose her house just cause her son happened to deal drugs from the basement. People traveling with large sums of cash shouldn’t have it seized without a successful conviction for a crime involving said funds. That’s all the issue.

 

[MarysLurker]

What I mean is that the ability to seize assets without having to obtain a criminal conviction makes “due process” into a farce

Are you saying that civil lawsuits (which is what forfeiture is) violate due process?

Basically, mom shouldn’t lose her house just cause her son happened to deal drugs from the basement.

The son doesn’t own the house. The government can’t forfeit it unless it can show the mom used the house for dealing. And even then, the forfeiture would probably be denied as disproportionate under Tibbs v. Indiana.

 

[Dan123]

The U.S. Constitution prohibits forfeiture of property without due process, which requires personal notice on everyone having an interest in the property, and that all such people have an opportunity to be heard and defend.

So consider a case like this:

Five Years After The DEA Wrongfully Took Her Money, Miami Woman Still Fighting To Get Every Dollar Back

Why is this woman having to fight at all?

 

[Dan123]

The son doesn’t own the house. The government can’t forfeit it unless it can show the mom used the house for dealing.

Grandmother Who Lost Her Home Because Her Son Sold Marijuana Wins Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case

She won … after 7 years. Why did she have to fight for her own home for 7 years during what should have been her retirement years? Why was a house taken when the charge was over $200 worth of drugs?

 

[MarysLurker]

Why is this woman having to fight at all ?

Because it is not her money. According the the Government’s brief at the Supreme Court

While the federal forfeiture action was pending, a
Florida state court entered a default judgment in
AnnChery’s favor in the civil litigation it had brought
against Colorado and Kurvas Secret.

AnnCherry was a seller of clothing to a company owned by the petitioner’s ex husband. DEA says the ex was running a front company to launder drug money. AnnCherry says the money actually belongs to them. A Florida court agreed and entered judgment in AnnCherry’s favor. That necessarily ended the forfeiture… Not because the court found for the petitioner or her ex, but because it turned out not to be their money.

Then AnnCherry, the petitioner and her ex-husband made a settlement amongst each other to distribute the funds in settlement of each other’s claims so as to end the case without going through an appeals process. But then the petitioner got greedy and tried to get the court to award attorney’s fees from the DEA. She claimed that she won against DEA even though she lost her claim to the money in state court. That is why the case is still around.

So the Forbes et al. reporting that this lady has just been fighting the DEA for years is bad journalism. It’s a lot more complicated than that, but boils down to greedy lawyers trying to get some nice taxpayer money.

For their part, the Supreme Court ultimately denied her claim for attorney’s fees. Read the docket here.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-659.html

Edit: The Forbes articles that you all are posting are actually advertorials for the Institute for Justice. That would explain why you aren’t getting the facts.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)