Tag Archives: Fifth Amendment

New Mexico legislature passes civil asset forfeiture reforms

Posted on by

nm-sealNEW MEXICO — The unconstitutional procedure of civil forfeiture is being given special attention these days thanks to the Land of Enchantment. The New Mexico legislature passed H.B. 560 to limit civil forfeitures in their State. Governor Susana Martinez, however, has yet to sign it into law. The organization Freedom Works is concerned about the delay.

Recently Eric Holder announced new rules actually restricting civil forfeiture.

According to the End Forfeiture web site, there is a distinct difference between civil and criminal forfeiture.

In a criminal forfeiture, as the name implies, forfeiture of assets occurs when one is convicted of a crime. The action is taken against a person which means the person is given all rights to a criminal trial and a lawyer if one can not be afforded. The burden of evidence is on the government.

In a civil asset forfeiture, “Civil forfeiture cases are in rem proceedings—meaning that they are technically brought against the property itself rather than its owner. This legal fiction means that police and prosecutors can take and sell your cash, cars, homes or other property without having to convict you or even charge you with any wrongdoing. Fighting back means having to pay for a lawyer yourself or go it alone. And instead of the government having to prove your guilt, under civil forfeiture you must prove your innocence. It is an upside-down world that where the government holds all the cards and has the financial incentive to play them to the hilt.”

The classic example used is the IRS. If you deposit $10,000 or more regularly, that is reported to the IRS. If one starts depositing just less than that amount, the IRS assumes that you are guilty of attempting to hide something and acts to seize all of your assets. There may be no criminal charges brought against the person, but the burden of evidence is on the person to to prove their innocence. That may require lawyers fees more than the assets are worth, thus allowing the government to keep the seized assets.

The new rules by Eric Holder would require government authorities to act only on probable cause that the funds were generated by illegal activity or planned to be used in future criminal activity. In addition, if the activity does not prove to rise to the level to bring either civil or criminal trial, the agency must return assets in full.

This is a policy change, however, and can be changed by subsequent nominations to the position of Attorney General. This is just one example of why it is important for the Senate to select wisely. Freedom Works is not impressed with the civil asset forfeiture record of Loretta Lynch.

Action at the national level is not restricted to the office of the Attorney General. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has submitted S. 255 Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015 or the FAIR Act [H.R. 540 in the House submitted by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI-7)].

The Senate bill would ensure that a person contesting civil forfeiture has legal representation and increase the burden of proof by the federal government to clear and convincing evidence of a criminal activity.

The act of civil access forfeiture violates not only the due process of the Fifth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to be secure in their effects.

Civil asset forfeiture is not restricted to federal abuse. State and local law enforcement agencies have been known to seize assets without due process. The Institute for Justice gave Arizona a grade of D in 2010 for the civil forfeiture procedures in the State.

The New Mexico legislation is being hailed as the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture in the history of the practice.

See Also:
1. New Mexico Nixes Civil Asset Forfeiture: Leviathan Can Be Defeated — Forbes
2. Arizona Earns “D” In “Policing for Profit” Report — Institute for Justice

Seattle uses eminent domain to purchase a parking lot to turn it into a parking lot.

Posted on by

City tells 103-year-old: We’re buying your parking lot, like it or not

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

Read more and see video at Q13 Fox News

Supreme Court Tears Into Fifth Amendment, Rules Silence Can Be Used Against You If Questioned

Posted on by

dissent-silencedScott Shackford

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute explains that the Salinas v. Texas case was intended to be about whether prosecutors during a trial could cast aspersions on a defendant’s silence during questioning that took place prior to arrest — prior to the defendent being told he had the right to remain silent. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that they wouldn’t need to rule on the matter because the defendant had never invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection. This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:

The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government. That is the profound error in the decision. As the dissenters noted, in the circumstances of the case, it was evident what Salinas was doing. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has complicated the law for persons who are the most vulnerable–persons who lack education, persons who do not speak English very well, persons who may suffer from mental problems, and persons who may be under the influence of alcohol. This is a bad day for the Bill of Rights.

Read more at Prince Vega