Civil asset forfeiture has been the subject of public debate among the news media and law-makers nationwide; mainly in opposition of the practice. Civil asset forfeiture, in large, is the seizure of money and/or property from those who commit drug crimes. For instance, if an officer stops a vehicle and legally finds that there is a felony amount of narcotics inside the vehicle, and the owner has intentions of selling those drugs, that vehicle is subject to seizure along with any money that is found to be the proceeds of drug sales. Many people who have seen investigative news reports believe that officers can just pull someone over and take their property for no reason what-so-ever; however, an officer must have probable cause that the property …show more content…
In cases of criminal asset forfeiture, property that is seized from the defendant(s) can only be forfeited if the accused is charged and convicted in criminal court. The use of civil asset forfeiture does not mandate a criminal charge be attached to the seizure. For instance, if an officer stops someone in a vehicle that is registered to the driver’s mother, the vehicle has six pounds of cocaine in it; it is proven that the driver intended to sell the cocaine, it is also proven that the driver had indicia of ownership of the vehicle – that vehicle is subject to seizure. Registering a vehicle in someone else’s name is a common practice for drug dealers so they can avoid detection and try to keep their vehicle from being seized. The practice of asset forfeiture in the United States dates back to President George Washington’s administration. In 1789, congress passed a forfeiture law to punish ships for customs violations (Hawaii, n.d.). Modern-day civil Asset Forfeiture was reformed in 1978 during President Jimmy Carter’s administration when congressed passed legislation allowing the seizure of monies that was associated with drug crimes. When President Ronald Reagan declared the “War on Drugs”, congress passed the Crime Control Act of 1984 to allow the seizure of real property along with the allocation procedures of forfeited …show more content…
What happens when the property is seized and what is the end result? In Tennessee, which is the state I am a law enforcement officer in, does have a legal process for civil asset forfeiture (Tennessee, 2017). If an officer has probable cause to seize someone’s property under civil asset forfeiture, upon seizure, the officer has to give the person in possession of the property a notification of seizure form. This form outlines pertinent information about the person the property was seized from, the owner of the property, the description of the property that was being seized, and the date of seizure. From the time of the seizure notification being issued, the officer has five business days to go before a judge and present the probable cause. If the judge finds that there is probable cause for the property to be seized, the officer has an additional five days to deliver the paperwork to the State of Tennessee Department of Safety Legal Division (DOS). From that point, DOS sets the hearing date for the person(s) who have an interest in the seized property and the officer who seized the property. Fast-forwarding the legal process, if/when DOS finds that the seized property has to be forfeited to the seizing agency, the seizing agency has to wait approximately sixty days to ensure there is no appeal. Once the sixty days has passed, the seized items become property of the seizing agency to dispose of
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
When the cops impound a vehicle they have to take an inventory of what is in the vehicle for protection, legal responsibility, and usefulness. An impounded vehicle is in the police’s possession, and they move it to a safe location such as a garage, or the police lot.
Gant was arrested by Arizona police because he was driving a vehicle with a suspended license. While he was being handcuffed, officers searched his vehicle and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. During the trial, Gant petitioned to suppress the gun and cocaine because the police didn’t serve a warrant to search his vehicle, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to the Supreme Courts opinion on this case, Arizona vs. Gant, it was standard practice for police to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of a vehicle. The justifications for the search incident to arrest are to allow police to secure any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use to resist arrest or escape and preserve evidence. This case is a decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to a continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. ...
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
The extent of unreasonable searches and seizures go from uncalled for arrests that seem to be at random and to warrantless searches of private property. Searches on private property will only be allowed if there is reasonable David Riley was pulled over on August 22, 2009 for driving with expired tags. Riley’s license was suspended and therefore, the car had to be impounded. Upon impounding the car it was searched, and its contents cataloged. When searching the car, police found two guns and added the charge of carrying a firearm to Riley’s offence.
“[The war on drugs] has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world,” noted Eric Schlosser in his essay, “A People’s Democratic Platform”, which presents a case for decriminalizing controlled substances. Government policies regarding drugs are more focused towards illegalization rather than revitalization. Schlosser identifies a few of the crippling side effects of the current drug policy put in place by the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s to prohibit drug use and the violence and destruction that ensue from it (Schlosser 3). Ironically, not only is drug use as prevalent as ever, drug-related crime has also become a staple of our society. In fact, the policy of the criminalization of drugs has fostered a steady increase in crime over the past several decades. This research will aim to critically analyze the impact of government statutes regarding drugs on the society as a whole.
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
One aspect of financial incentives lay in the concept of forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies were granted authority to keep the bulk of cash and assets seized when making arrests, which allowed the drug war’s perpetual existence. The drug market then needed to be profitable and successful so that police forces could make money (Alexander, 78-79). A person could be found innocent of a crime and their property could still be subjected to seizure, and “those who were targeted were typically poor or of moderate means, lacking the resources to hire an attorney or pay the considerable court costs” (79). Ultimately, this process was highly lucrative for police. Those with assets could buy their freedom, while those who lacked financial means were subject to arrest. Additionally, there was no real justification for many of the raids. For example, some officers took as little as 93 cents in raids, even though by no means could that amount be considered drug money (82). Property could also be considered “guilty”. For example, a woman who knew her husband sometimes smoked marijuana could have her car forfeited since she allowed him to use her car (83). Unfortunately, forfeiture cases are left unchallenged 90% of the time, since the primary targets of this practice cannot afford lawyers to fight the case. Additionally, federal funding to police departments provided incentives for police arrests in the drug war. Law enforcement agencies that made drug-law top priority were given large sums of money, leading to competitions between departments and higher arrest rates (Alexander, 74). And not only cash assets, but military equipment was doled out by the Pentagon to local police departments in hopes that it would increase arrest rates
Nonetheless, if the defendant is caught in a hot pursuit, and after the defendant’s vehicle has been impounded by the police, the defendant and officers have the right to search it for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents in the vehicle, used as evidence. The reason for the inventory is to protect the police officer against occurring claims that the impounded vehicle was taken while in police custody. If the officer is in no danger, then he would need an arrest warrant to detain the individual and search warrant to enter his garage. If while inside the garage, the officer becomes in “hot pursuit” of the defendant and may give chance. The police officer would not need a search warrant to enter the hoe in pursuit of the
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
modern law, they have a variety of items, including intoxicating liquors, gambling implements, counterfeiters' tools, burglars' tools, smuggled goods, obscene literature, narcotics, illegal firearms and any article the possession of which is a crime or which may be used in evidence. (Encarta Online) The warrant must specify the place where the search is to be made and the property to be seized. An officer cannot get a warrant from a judge in any circumstance. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The officer may have to give a reasonable cause. As ruled in the case of Illinois v. Gates in 1983, ?to establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie hearing is not required.? (Illinois v. Gates) The accused has the right to fight the grounds when the war...
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts.
A search occurs when the police or other government agency intrudes into a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a seizure occurs when they affect a person’s right to have the property. “Some examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy include: Places of residence, Hotel rooms, certain public places such as restrooms, some areas of jail houses, phone booths and certain areas of a car” (Rivera, ...
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.