Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Sheriff Says Seizing Money and Property from Innocent People Does Not Violate Their Rights
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ok ... nnocent-people-violate-rights/
Published: Aug 5, 2015
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2015-08-05 10:18:30 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 906
Comments: 14
Canadian County, OK — An Oklahoma sheriff issued a string of misleading statements on Monday while criticizing a bill that would reign in the state’s abuse of civil asset forfeiture. Canadian County Sheriff Randall R. Edwards suggested that there is no violation of constitutional rights when authorities seize cash and property over alleged drug offenses, even when the person is not convicted of a crime. State Senator Kyle Loveless recently introduced a bill that would bar authorities from seizing money or property unless the suspect is convicted. He was prompted by the discovery that funds and property had been misspent or gone missing in several different cases. “Among the violations were using seized money to pay on a prosecutor’s student loans and allowing a prosecutor to live rent-free in a confiscated house for years, records show.” Edwards dismissed these abuses as “a few bad apples” and glorified the War on Drugs, which has allowed for the creation of an unbridled extortion scheme known as civil asset forfeiture. “We’re taking the (drug) cartels’ money off the highway and using it to fight the cartels. I don’t know if we’ll ever beat the war on drugs, if we’ll ever be able to win it, but we’re certainly keeping it in check to where it isn’t as bad as it would be without law enforcement.” Unthinking foot soldiers are quick to defend the assault on human rights known as the War on Drugs—a blight in human history that has put millions of innocent people in cages and stolen billions of their dollars. Edwards bluntly stated, “We’re not violating your Fourth Amendment rights” by seizing cash and property from alleged drug dealers, even when they are never convicted of a crime. A study by the Arizona Law Review shows this statement for the falsehood it is. “Today’s civil asset forfeiture system also raises several constitutional issues. First, the potential for law enforcement to operate independently of the political process may violate the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. Second, a federally created forfeiture tool called “equitable sharing” effectively permits state and local law enforcement to bypass states’ attempts to mandate how proceeds are disbursed, raising federalism concerns. Finally, the increasingly popular use of waivers—whereby the police offer property owners the choice of avoiding criminal charges in exchange for their property—means owners are deprived of the chance to challenge the forfeiture in a proceeding. Agencies that use waivers bypass civil asset forfeiture laws and deprive owners of the protections they provide, raising serious due process concerns.” It’s no wonder Edwards is becoming hysterical over the idea that he could lose his cash cow. Sheriff’s offices in the US received about $178 million in one year alone, according to Drug War Facts. At the federal level, US attorneys have “recovered” over $12 billion through asset forfeiture. While Edwards’ assertions are sheer lunacy, he is consistent across the board. Edwards is ironically a member of the Oklahoma Oath Keepers. Over the weekend, he called for those who burn or fly another flag, other than the US flag, to be imprisoned. He also called for the deportation of those who don’t worship the warfare state. In the video below, Edwards discredits himself even further by hilariously saying that Mike Brown beat Darren Wilson “half to death.” Whatever you actually believe about either side of that story, one thing is certain, a rose-colored mark on your cheek does not constitute being beaten half to death. Informed people present at the meeting challenged Edwards’ rhetoric, and some even walked out. State Representative Bobby Cleveland suggested that people should not have to spend money on an attorney and go through court proceedings to get their property back, saying, “What I don’t support is a person who is perfectly innocent having to spend money to get their own money back.” Edwards could not even support this very reasonable position, saying it would put too much power in one person’s hands. The sheriff believes that citizens should cringe under the power of the State and be thankful for whatever crumbs fall their way. He is a noble sentinel of the law, protecting the good citizens from scoundrels who would poison humanity with illicit substances. “It physically made me feel ill to see people of your stature – salt of the earth people … buy into what the senator is saying. I can tell you right now, law enforcement is your friend,” says Edwards. Civil asset forfeiture may represent everything that is wrong with a maniacal State drunk with power and money. Since its creation almost 30 years ago, it has trampled over Constitutional rights to swell the revenues of law enforcement. Studies referenced by Drug War Facts illustrate this point. “During the past decade, law enforcement agencies increasingly have turned to asset seizures and drug enforcement grants to compensate for budgetary shortfalls, at the expense of other criminal justice goals. We believe the strange shape of the criminal justice system today—the law enforcement agenda that targets assets rather than crime, the 80 percent of seizures that are unaccompanied by any criminal prosecution, the plea bargains that favor drug kingpins and penalize the “mules” without assets to trade, the reverse stings that target drug buyers rather than drug sellers, the overkill in agencies involved even in minor arrests, the massive shift towards federal jurisdiction over local law enforcement—is largely the unplanned by-product of this economic incentive structure.” “In general, however, the powerful incentives for profit-seeking found within forfeiture current laws is criticized as encouraging inappropriate enforcement activities and detracting from the proper role of law enforcement within a democratic state. The dependency of the police on public resources for their operations is an important check on police power. Self-generating revenues by the police through forfeiture potentially threatens the ability of popularly elected officials to constrain police activities.” "...I can tell you right now, law enforcement is your friend,” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
It took a "study" to come up with that erroneous conclusion? Civil asset forfeiture has been around hundreds of years and is 100% constitutional. Just because it's unpopular with drug dealers doesn't make it unconstitutional.
TRANSLATION: We will steal & take anything we want, from anybody we want, anytime we want! And you cannot do anything about it, because we have guns, badges, and the judges. If you do not like it, tuff shit! Good PR. Sounds like that county needs a new sheriff. Asset forfeiture may have started with good intentions, but it sure sounds like it is being grossly misused. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Not only with drug dealers.
Yeah, right paulsen - because only drug dealers are affected by asset forfeiture laws. Whadda putz! In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Is that the amendment that states "We (State-sanctioned thugs) can steal any fucking thing we want from you for any reason and you can't do a damn thing about it"? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Correct. 99% drug dealers. 1% other.
Drugs or No Drugs, K-9s Will Alert to Your Car Nearly Every Time In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Edwards needs a long drop on a short rope to get his thinking straight.
Civil asset forfeiture has become a fancy euphemistic code word for theft.
I think it is. However, you failed to include the last sentence: " And if you do not like that, tuff zhit and phuck you. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!" Si vis pacem, para bellum
Yes it is. And it is grossly misused/overused. Kinda like the nazi's after they took over an area. Si vis pacem, para bellum
You do realize your ridiculous, over the top postings do not do the pro-law enforcement community any favors, right? Given your absurdity, I'm kinda glad you're not on our side.
This article, and others like it, is not about law enforcement. You and your ilk want it to be because it's easier to blame law enforcement rather than blame the asset forfeiture law itself. Law enforcement is simply doing it's job. Are you expecting them not to?
Theft from criminals. Oh, the irony.
"A study by the Arizona Law Review shows this statement for the falsehood it is."
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
" Edwards bluntly stated, “We’re not violating your Fourth Amendment rights” by seizing cash and property from alleged drug dealers, even when they are never convicted of a crime. "
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
Just because it's unpopular with drug dealers doesn't make it unconstitutional.
#4. To: misterwhite (#1)
Just because it's unpopular with drug dealers doesn't make it unconstitutional.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#5. To: misterwhite (#1)
Civil asset forfeiture has been around hundreds of years and is 100% constitutional.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: A Pole (#3)
"Not only with drug dealers."
#7. To: misterwhite, A Pole (#6)
99% drug dealers. 1% other.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: Deckard (#0)
#9. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#10. To: Deckard (#5)
" Is that the amendment that states "We (State-sanctioned thugs) can steal any fucking thing we want from you for any reason and you can't do a damn thing about it"? "
#11. To: rlk (#9)
" Is that the amendment that states "We (State-sanctioned thugs) can steal any fucking thing we want from you for any reason and you can't do a damn thing about it"? "
#12. To: misterwhite (#1)
Civil asset forfeiture has been around hundreds of years and is 100% constitutional. Just because it's unpopular with drug dealers doesn't make it unconstitutional.
#13. To: Pinguinite (#12)
"You do realize your ridiculous, over the top postings do not do the pro-law enforcement community any favors, right?"
#14. To: rlk (#9)
"Civil asset forfeiture has become a fancy euphemistic code word for theft."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]