ShareThis Page

Remember the 4th Amendment? Stop asset thievery

| Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But a person's property? Well, that's a different matter.

Although there has been some fresh thinking about civil asset forfeiture of private property, the constitutional shredding continues.

Under the Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service, along with the IRS, government agents are allowed to seize property (cash, cars, computers, etc.) from people who haven't been convicted of anything. Those caught up in this Kafkaesque nightmare must prove their innocence.

Last year it's estimated that Justice “oversaw” the collection of more than $1.6 billion from states participating in the civil asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” program, writes Cheryl K. Chumley for The Washington Times.

Two years ago, the IRS changed its policy. “Restructuring laws, the frequent precursor to civil asset forfeitures, could only be applied to actual criminals,” reports Ms. Chumley. But the property seizures — and the “sharing” — continue. The U.S. Marshals Service is managing seized assess totaling billions of dollars.

On this issue, the Fourth Amendment is clear: The “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searchers and seizures, shall not be violated.”

The law is on the side of property owners. Presuming otherwise, without a trial or conviction, is thievery.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me