Comment by defen
7 years ago
> Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.
Money is fungible, so I would be sympathetic to an argument that claimed he had made in the vicinity of $40k from selling drugs (which could not be confiscated for whatever reason, maybe he spent it all on drugs for his own use or something) and so it was justified to seize his car.
But from the way it's described, I don't see why the state doesn't think it can justify confiscating an arbitrarily large amount of property from a person who has committed an arbitrarily small drug crime. e.g. if this guy owned a $400,000 house and sold $20 worth of drugs out of it, can they take his house?
Yes, they can seize houses, even when the accused doesn't own the house but just lives there, and the owner was not aware of any crime taking place.
http://ij.org/action-post/how-a-philadelphia-family-lost-the...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/15/g...
By my limited understanding, I believe that they could, as there is no limit akin to maximum fines with regards to civil forfeiture - as in this case, where the maximum of $10k was circumvented. Moreover, it does not require proof of guilt or a conviction, ripening its possibility for abuse.
Well, there is a constitutional limitation on excessive fines and punishments. But the statutes typically don't specify.
They would allow seizure of one's shoes for jaywalking, and not just the shoes the offender was wearing, but all those in his closet, too. The laws as written are insufficiently protective against official abuse, so now that they have become routinely abused, it would be wise to revise.