https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/710456736...ins-tricky

Clearly police have gotten excessive. Article discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling one case an "excessive fine" and the resulting gray area.

"...Law enforcement groups are worried about the shifting political climate on this issue.

"Our goal is to put a pause" on this legislation, says Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie. He says there's a mushrooming meth trade in his part of Minnesota, and he needs asset forfeiture to disrupt the crime networks by seizing property, even when the culprits can't be found for prosecution.

"Why are we moving toward less tools in the toolbox?" he asks. At the same time, he acknowledges the political pressure created by high-profile seizure cases such as Timbs.

"Those outrageous examples, we have to face those," he says. "But we just don't want the pendulum to swing too far. We want to still have some tools for the outrageous things that we see going on" in drug trafficking networks...."

Why don't they build the case like they are supposed to, make their arrests and get the convictions? I don't see why civil forfeiture should be viable given our system is set up with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Civil forfeiture needs to be done away with. If someone breaks the law. Then fine them an approved amount. But stealing is stealing.

I think if you are dealing with other people's money, forfeiture of some sort is necessary. Put it in an escrow account. In the case of a Ponzi scheme, for instance, we are talking money and assets owed to victims. If Bernie Madoff's wife had access to his bank accounts, why should she be able to take the money offshore and flee the country while he is amid 3 years of legal proceedings? Yes, it is abused and yes, it needs more restrictions, but no, it shouldn't be done away with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk