No, the fact that it is civil forfeiture, which is handled differently than impounding, is relevant for a post that says:
how quickly can they get their property back when civil forfeiture happens
That wording implies that they will get their property back, when the default for civil forfeiture is not getting their property back. Expediting the hearings doesn’t change the underlying issue of civil forfeiture being the police taking away people’s stuff for a reason that has nothing to do with their arrests and forcing people to justify getting it back.
It will also speed up the cases where they are not given their stuff back.
Then you should have said that in your original response.
Like it was said, if you had originally read the article or look into it before commenting you would know they already got their cars back. Meaning your staunch stands that they don’t get their stuff back is false.
Even if you had done a simple Wikipedia search you would understand that there is a hearing. That means you can fight it and get your stuff back. A preponderance of evidence is required for civil asset forfeiture.
The Supreme Court case is about the intentional delay of the hearing for civil asset forfeiture. So that means they can represent themselves or pay for legal counsel to get their stuff back in a reasonable time. (Due process, fifth and 14th amendment. The government cannot deprive anyone of life liberty or property.) clearly we are talking about property here.
Don’t get me wrong civil asset forfeiture should not exist, and is an abomination to our rights. However, you need to accept that you were wrong with your comment towards Chestnut for giving a simplified explanation of what the root caused for the case was.
No, the fact that it is civil forfeiture, which is handled differently than impounding, is relevant for a post that says:
That wording implies that they will get their property back, when the default for civil forfeiture is not getting their property back. Expediting the hearings doesn’t change the underlying issue of civil forfeiture being the police taking away people’s stuff for a reason that has nothing to do with their arrests and forcing people to justify getting it back.
It will also speed up the cases where they are not given their stuff back.
Then you should have said that in your original response.
Like it was said, if you had originally read the article or look into it before commenting you would know they already got their cars back. Meaning your staunch stands that they don’t get their stuff back is false.
Even if you had done a simple Wikipedia search you would understand that there is a hearing. That means you can fight it and get your stuff back. A preponderance of evidence is required for civil asset forfeiture.
The Supreme Court case is about the intentional delay of the hearing for civil asset forfeiture. So that means they can represent themselves or pay for legal counsel to get their stuff back in a reasonable time. (Due process, fifth and 14th amendment. The government cannot deprive anyone of life liberty or property.) clearly we are talking about property here.
Don’t get me wrong civil asset forfeiture should not exist, and is an abomination to our rights. However, you need to accept that you were wrong with your comment towards Chestnut for giving a simplified explanation of what the root caused for the case was.