This is why we should repeal all drug laws, right?
Serious question?
No. But it is reason to shift the legal onus back to the cops and the state to prove guilt rather then the "defendant" to prove innocence.
Whoever wrote that statute should be whacked up side the head with the book containing all the laws in Minnesota.
James, regrettably these presently are the laws of Minnesota. The whacking will probably have to come from the US and Minnesota constitutions, as set forth in the complaint referred to in the post.
It seems to me that the defenders of the statute are admitting a problem with the whole system, but are just throwing buzzwords out to deflect any change. A lack of "accountability?" If there wasn't any "accountability" in the past, where is it going to come from? Are we supposed to trust them now, just because the flaws were exposed?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It is apparent that law enforcement can't be trusted to operate forfeiture programs (which are at best little more than a nasty end-run aroud the Constitution). If forfeiture is going to continue as a weapon/tool, there should be powerful oversight from overseers with no tangible stake in the outcome of the cases.
Randy makes a good point. Most of the mopes, to use Commander Ryan's term, at the hearing calling for oversight ARE the oversight.
Actually, there are better reasons to repeal drug laws than police corruption. But forfeiture serves a real purpose. What's the point of arresting someone for selling drugs if they get to keep everything they got from selling drugs? It's like how we fine companies $250,000 for breaking a law that earned them millions. There's no deterrent.
Crime shouldn't pay; that's law enforcement's rationale for forfeiture. But you can't really say, can you, that every dime or piece of jewelry in an apartment occupied by several people is connected to the drug profits of one of them?
Or that a suburban mother deserves to lose her Grand Cjherokee because her son was driving it impaired? (more on that later)
It is the breathtaking sweep of the forfeiture statutes that are going to be their downfall; that and the overreaching of police enforcement.
The cops seized the motorized recliner used in the widely reported DWI and auctioned it off on eBay this week; the offense took place on, I believe the 19th of October. Even the statute gives the property owner sixty days to file an action to get the property back.
This demonstrates two things: first, cops can and do trip overthemselves to make money off of forfeiture, and two, it is obviously better to be the chief of police in Edina than Proctor; the pickings are much, much better.
The guy got a plea deal in return for giving up the motor chair, so that's not relevant.
So drug dealers can buy mom a house, or his lady friend a necklace and his little brother an X-Box, and since those aren't "his" things, they should be off limits? If someone is a repeat drunk driver, and his car is taken, it's OK for his buddy to keep lending him a car to drive drunk some more with no reprisal?
I'll agree that there can be changes, but the general feeling here seems to be that forfeiture is just a racket for to police, and not punishment for bad behavior.
A plea deal that involved seized property may in fact prove another point; we'll find out tomorrow.
But there should be some correspondence between the criminal activity gains, amounts thereof, and in the hands of whom before we start a wholesale property grab. Especially when the process is complicated and burdensome in getting one's property back, even if entirely innocent. It just turns due process of law on its head. Sure there are some legitimate goals, here, but Stoo, you gotta realize that I'm advocating for a position here and trying to set it out as clearly (and provocatively) as possible.
Actually they didn't auction it off on Ebay. They rather got in trouble with Laz-boy
Commenting by HaloScan
