Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 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 ...
An abandoned car Maui Police Department sticker, to be affixed to cars which are suspected of having been abandoned. Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it.
The Kansas House and Senate each passed their own versions of laws reforming civil asset forfeiture, the practice of police confiscation of property that’s allegedly involved in criminal activities.
Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.. In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods (or property) and knew they were stolen, then the individual may be charged with a crime, depending on the value of the stolen goods, and the goods are returned to the original owner.
The controversial but widespread practice allows police to take property they believe is connected to a crime before anyone is charged or convicted. Kansas law enforcement seized $3.91 million of ...
Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on seizure of property by the Chicago Police Department, however the case was declared moot by the Court as the parties agreed that there was no longer contention over the property seized.