<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2003891514_forfeit19m0.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2003891514_forfeit19m0.html</a></p>
<p>Does anyone know if these drug dealer asset forfeiture laws have ever made it to the Supreme Court? IANAL, but I have always thought they were appalling violations of the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>I saw that- Im wondering if it would be any different than someone lending a car to someone that you weren’t related to, so that they could use it to commit a crime?</p>
<p>yes, and they were upheld long ago</p>
<p>US v Good limited right to take real property of an “innocent” owner but autos etc are fair game</p>
<p>This particular case seems ridiculous. They were supposed to be suspicious and snoop around their son because he had prior problems with drugs, and was unemployed? That’s it?</p>
<p>This happens all the time in Florida. Don’t lend your boat to anyone.</p>
<p>It sounds like he is quite a heavy drug user as well- Im wondering if they noticed that
<a href=“Washington State Courts - Opinions”>Opinion;
<p>Really interesting discussion of forfeiture policy since 1970. Aside from the Constitutional issues, it sure smells of high heaven when police agencies can use civil forfeiture to fund their own operations. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Asset_Forfeiture_Briefing.pdf[/url]”>http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Asset_Forfeiture_Briefing.pdf</a></p>
<p>Historical background: <a href=“http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/forfeiture.html[/url]”>http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/forfeiture.html</a></p>
<p>Never let anyone:</p>
<ol>
<li> On your property</li>
<li> In your car</li>
<li> On your boat</li>
<li> In your plane (if you have one)</li>
</ol>
<p>Of course, assets have been seized even when property was used for illegal purposes when the owner was actively trying to prevent it, so you really have no defense. And I thought Stalin was dead.</p>
<p>Eh, they were lucky. A reasonable judge might have come to the conclusion that he was selling (or storing) drugs in their house. They are just lucky that the son’s room wasn’t searched.</p>
<p>I know I am going to get flamed for this (go ahead - I have a fire extinguisher in my hand)… </p>
<p>It figures that on the same day that I saw someone get tasered for exercising his right to free speech and protest at a major liberal’s event, I also read about how a couple’s rights and freedoms were being denied in one of the most liberal states in the nation.</p>
<p>In any case, whatever our political views, I think we can all agree that this is scary stuff.</p>
<p>spideygirl: You’re not going to get flamed, just dismissed, since that student didn’t actually have any right to protest in that private auditorium, nor did he have any right to cause that kind of disturbance.</p>
<p>and I think civil forfeiture for instruments associated with crime is perfectly fine, so we don’t <em>all</em> agree</p>
<p>redcrimblue: You think it’s fair that someone who lends their car or boat to a friend, with no suspicion (or reason for suspicion) of illicit activity, is forced to surrender it because of their friend’s actions?</p>
<p>I know it’s the law, and has been for a long time. There are civil remedies available.</p>
<p>In the OP’s case - the son continued to be allowed to use the parents vehicles for illegal activity - and had been warned about not doing so - thus the reasoning behind their vehicles being obsconded with - sounds good to me - the son wasn’t a kid - he was a full grown adult - as were his parents - all responsible for their actions. Parents had been warned by the judge and chose not to abide by the advice…</p>
<p>Do you think that maybe the parents should have kicked the son out of their house a while ago and took away the car keys? I don’t get it. Why do people always cry boo hoo when they have to face the consequences of their enabling.</p>
<p>In reading the article I was amazed the kid was arrested numerous times with tons of drugs & cash in the car, but he only served 6 months in jail.</p>
<p>I would love to know the entire circumstances, as it talks about the kid deleting VM messages and intercepting letters preventing parents from knowing about the initial arrest(s)…it also mentions the Dad getting “the club” or something like that to prevent the cars from being driven, so how did the kid get them again, or was the forfeit based upon the earliest arrests?</p>
<p>He was probably dealing out of the house, and using the phone (and phone machine) for criminal purposes.</p>
<p>The parents might have gotten off easily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In 1970, Pearson yachts chartered a sailboat to someone who then was boarded by the Coast Guard. A single joint was found on board and the boat was seized and sold at auction. The owner – Pearson Yachts – was not compensated for this loss. This is one of dozens of similar examples. If the police found a joint in your back yard they could seize your house and evict you without compensation because your home “committed a crime.” </p>
<p>If you think that’s right, I encourage you to run for office and mention your support for this policy in your campaign. I would enjoy watching the results.</p>