Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States ruled that a forfeiture could be considered as an excessive fine, [16] the court upheld the principle of civil forfeiture generally. [7] A 1996 Supreme Court decision ruled that prosecuting a person for a crime and seizing his or her property via civil forfeiture did not constitute double jeopardy , and therefore did not violate ...
The Court's decision created a conflict with decisions in other circuits, where panels had held that pending administrative and criminal proceedings are relevant considerations in determining whether delays in forfeiture proceedings violate the Due Process Clause. The United States petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. [7]
The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld civil forfeiture laws as a valid exercise of the provincial government power over property and civil rights. The extent to which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to civil forfeiture statutes is still under dispute.
The Supreme Court stated the law on the matter: under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, states ordinarily may not seize real property (real estate) before providing notice and a ...
That prosecutors in the Hoosier State successfully denied people this due process is a reflection of how abusive civil forfeiture can be. Civil Forfeiture Defendants Have the Right to a Jury Trial ...
The Supreme Court refuses to tighten the rules when police seize cars. ... I hope we might begin the task of assessing how well the profound changes in civil forfeiture practices we have witnessed ...
United States, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness ...
United States 509 U.S. 602 (1993), [25] the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does apply to civil asset forfeiture actions taken by the federal government, in the specific case, the government's seizure of the petitioner's auto body shop on the basis of one charge of drug possession for which he had served seven years in prison.