Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The profit motive, in which police can keep 90% or more of profits, "forms the rotten core of forfeiture abuse". [7] Prosecutors and police have a strong incentive to seize property since the funds can be used to pay expenses of the District Attorney's office, including salaries.
The plaintiffs each had their property seized by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Five of the plaintiffs were arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest in the Adams Morgan ...
In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge ...
On April 17, 2014, the State of Texas seized the YFZ Ranch, a one time Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community that housed as many as 700 people when it was raided by Texas on March 29, 2008. [34] [35] Under Texas law, authorities can seize property that was used to commit or facilitate certain criminal conduct.
They also require police to submit a probable cause affidavit defending their choice to seize property, require courts to determine whether a seizure was excessive and raise the legal burden ...
Over the past four years, Kansas law enforcement seized $23.1 million in cash and property allegedly linked to criminal activity. Most of the time, owners never tried to take it back.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday reinforced the power of law enforcement authorities to retain seized property belonging to people not charged with a crime, ruling in favor of Alabama officials ...
For a law-enforcement officer to legally seize an item, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects in order to obtain a better view, and the officer may not be in a location unlawfully. These limitations were detailed in the case of Arizona v.