Comment by giantg2
3 days ago
Civil asset forfeiture isn't different in its principles. It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc. Essentially, this is an ex parte action against the asset forcing the owner to prove ownership in order to get legal standing to challenge in the court. It's a terrible system, but it utilizes the same principles found in other Civil laws. These lack of protections is why people push back on things like red flag laws and why legislatures are increasingly looking to use these to bypass things in the criminal side (see TX trying to allow actions against abortion seekers, or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
>> It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc.
That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or civil or any other "type" of law.
> or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
But doesn't the CA law explicitly acknowledge this by saying if the TX law is ever knocked back the CA law automatically becomes null and void?
I don't know. I heard about the idea of the similar law being stated by one of the politicians there. I didn't think it was actually passed. I thought the TX law was invalidated pretty quickly, likely before CA could even pass their own version for guns. It seemed like more of a political statement than a real law, which makes sense if they have an auto-repeal clause in it.
Either way, my point was that civil laws seem to be increasing in favor when the politicians and interest groups haven't been able to achieve what they want through the criminal side. Abortion and guns tend to showcase this most as they are the most contentious issues.
Texas went with vigilante justice to get its desires for abortion. Nothing surprises me anymore about how far red states will go to get their agendas pushed.
2 replies →