Due Process Act - ... Excessive Searches and Seizures Act of 2016 - H.R. 5283

[gutshot]

Not sure this has been discussed here, but I mentioned this House Bill in another thread.

The U.S. House just passed the Due Process Act (H.R. 5283), also know as "Deterring Undue Enforcement by Protecting Rights of Citizens from Excessive Searches and Seizures Act of 2016"

"Provides new protections and strengthens due process rights for property owners who are faced with the daunting task of contesting a federal civil forfeiture. The DUE PROCESS Act specifies a property owner’s right to a prompt initial hearing before a judge to challenge a seizure or claim undue hardship. The legislation also provides a right to legal representation to indigent property owners at all civil forfeiture proceedings and protects a defendant’s right to hire counsel of their choice. The legislation also requires the government to comply with certain administrative timeframes and notification procedures that benefit property owners, as well as provide transparency of federal forfeiture proceedings. Crucially, the DUE PROCESS Act also increases the federal government's burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings. Currently, federal law allows for preponderance of the evidence, which is the lowest standard of proof in a court of law. The DUE PROCESS Act would require clear and convincing evidence in civil asset forfeiture cases before the government can permanently take property. Advocates highlight, however, that the DUE PROCESS Act, as currently formulated, does not address the warrantless government seizures that will almost certainly continue unchecked until the profit incentives to pursue civil forfeitures are also addressed through legislation.“

Hopefully this will make it a little easier to get assets back that were unjustly seized.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/5283/text

[Boz]

The clear and convincing standard will be the end of property wrongfully kept by police departments. Not necessarily the end of it being seized in the first place, but I can live with that.

[gutshot]

Reading more on this topic...

"Noticeably absent is any language addressing the Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program. This program allows state and local law enforcement to circumvent protective state statutes and pursue permanent seizure of property through federal forfeiture laws. Failing to significantly reform or entirely eliminate the Equitable Sharing Program is a missed opportunity. We hope that it will not take another 16 years for Congress to revisit the issue."

I guess only time will tell how this will affect things on the state and local level.

[Boz]

Reading more on this topic...

"Noticeably absent is any language addressing the Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program. This program allows state and local law enforcement to circumvent protective state statutes and pursue permanent seizure of property through federal forfeiture laws. Failing to significantly reform or entirely eliminate the Equitable Sharing Program is a missed opportunity. We hope that it will not take another 16 years for Congress to revisit the issue."

I guess only time will tell how this will affect things on the state and local level.

My understanding is that it doesn't matter. The states use the federal law to circumvent their own laws. Most property is forfeited because it the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance that the property wasn't used in a crime; the cost of going to court are greater than the property in many cases. With the burden changing to the police must clearly and convincingly show the property was used in a crime, the cost challenging a forfeiture would plummet--and the innocent citizen much more likely to win.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

BOZ, Not so quick there Sparky.

The law is the law except when it isn't. "Facts-on-the-Ground"
always trump law books.
I had a new car seized and held as (supposed) evidence in a
case in which I was involved.

It took over a year to wend its way through the court. At that time
I could have gotten my new car back; except for one salient detail.
The daily storage charge far exceeded the value of the car by then.

[Three]

That's one way for the government to steal your property. Take is and don't let you have it back until you must pay more than its worth to get it back. The individual officers that took it should have to pay the storage for taking your property when they were in the wrong for doing so. If they were held accountable for overstepping their authority and taking property that they should not take the would be more reasonable about seizures. The laws are supposed to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. If the officers went beyond what is reasonable they should have to pay with a jail sentence a make the injured party whole again with monetary penalty. Highway robbery should be tolerated only when the facts are obvious and blatantly overwhelming. Pretty soon every citizen will fear and hate the police and other authorities as much as the minorities that get daily abuse from them in the city do.

[Villiam]

Prophesy!

[Boz]

BOZ, Not so quick there Sparky.

The law is the law except when it isn't. "Facts-on-the-Ground"
always trump law books.
I had a new car seized and held as (supposed) evidence in a
case in which I was involved.

It took over a year to wend its way through the court. At that time
I could have gotten my new car back; except for one salient detail.
The daily storage charge far exceeded the value of the car by then.

That's highly unusual. Most of us don't have to deal with these types of problems because we aren't international criminals, Flash.