Did you
know that Salem, West Virginia (not the Salem that burned all of those witches
in the late 17th century, just another city that bears its
name) still has a law on the books that makes it illegal to eat a piece of
candy less than ninety minutes before church service begins on a Sunday?
Edward Maggio, Esq. says
that most of
the ridiculous laws that federal, state, and local governments have on their
books exist simply to be made fun of by online list articles, are never
enforced, and only persist because no one has bothered to go back through the
books and remove that law that prohibits bartenders in North Dakota from
serving pretzels and beer at the same time.
One of
the most ridiculous laws, however, is still actively enforced. It’s called civil forfeiture, and in short, it means
that if the police suspect you of committing a crime, that can seize your
possessions and sell them for their own profit. Yes, you read that correctly.
You don’t have to be charged or convicted of a crime (that’s called criminal
forfeiture and still sounds pretty unfair). You just have to be suspected of
a crime. A police department could list you as a suspect of a crime, come and
collect your car, your laptop, all your clothes, the deed to your house, etc.
and sell any and all to fund that department’s own budget.
That is
a scenario that could happen—and as unbelievable as it sounds, it does happen.
Before we get to the opinion, let’s look at the facts by Edward
Maggio, Esq. . The Fourth Amendment states, “The right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Some
proponents have gone on to cite the last half of the amendment, which discusses
warrants issued on probable cause: “…and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The
language of this amendment is very important. It does not say that a warrant
(which would obviously constitute suspicion) strips a person of his right to be
secure in his person, house, papers, and effects. That right is finite. It does
not say “shall not be violated unless a warranted is issued.”
The
Fifth Amendment, after discussing double jeopardy at length,
says, “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.”
It’s
fair to say that some of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are open to
interpretation. The language in these instances, however, is very clear.
The
origin of this concept of civil forfeiture
predates even the Salem witch trials. According to the British Navigation Acts,
which were written and enacted while England was still aggressively vying to
take over the entire world, all ships that were taking goods to England or
taking goods away from England (essentially, any ship that would dock at a
British port), had to fly a British flag. If they did not, both the ships and
the goods they carried could be taken and added to the crown’s fortune. Why?
Because it was often much easier to just seize the goods and the ship than it
was to track down those who were violating the law.
These
laws carried over into US law, with cases being upheld by the Supreme Court
right and left and new and more exacting civil forfeiture
laws being added to the books, all the way up to the today. These new laws
allowed forfeiture for everything from suspicious of theft to drug trafficking
to murder. Special funds were set up to hold forfeiture revenues.
Here’s
the bottom line per Edward
Maggio, Esq. research: if
everyone in law enforcement was completely honest and only had the best
intentions at heart, civil forfeiture,
despite being wildly unconstitutional, might at least be
fair. Unfortunately, it’s just not the case. Law enforcement personnel
know that they benefit directly from civil forfeiture. Their
equipment, vehicles, and sometimes salaries are paid out of civil forfeiture funds. This opens a huge
door for corruption—one that is often used.
Only
Wisconsin and Nebraska have a clause in their civil forfeiture
clauses that requires law enforcement to adhere to the “beyond a reasonable”
standard required to actually charge and convict someone of a crime. What does
this mean? It means that charged and convicted criminals have more rights (even
forfeiture rights) than innocent people whose possessions are taken under civil forfeiture. Furthermore, in these
cases, the government requires the owner to prove his innocence—completely
negating that whole “innocent until proven guilty” sentiment our judicial system
is supposed to be built on.
