Civil Asset Forfeiture

[George K]

David Burge (Iowahawk) comments: "I'm happy because civil asset forfeiture is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, and angry that they had to pass a law to stop it"

[Axtremus]

Kudos for the AZ House for passing that bill. But it still has to get through the Arizona Senate and hope that the Governor won’t veto it, so that bill can still be derailed, right?

[Mik]

A small step in the right direction.

[George K]

@axtremus said in Civil Asset Forfeiture:

But it still has to get through the Arizona Senate and hope that the Governor won’t veto it, so that bill can still be derailed, right?

Half empty today, I see.

[jon-nyc]

Faster and more states, please.

[George K]

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/01/sixth-circuit-rules-owners-of-cars-taken-by-asset-forfeiture-have-constitutional-right-to-a-hearing-within-two-weeks-of-seizure/

Yesterday, in Ingram v. Wayne County, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to give owners a hearing within two weeks, in at least some cases where their cars seized through asset forfeiture.