Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under typical civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to illegal activity even if the owner isn't charged with a crime.
The Supreme Court refuses to tighten the rules when police seize cars.
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 ...
What has caused controversy is when the property of innocent persons is seized by police who believe that the seized items were involved in criminal activity. A June 2019 study found that more equitable sharing funds do not translate into more crimes solved, not improving overall police effectiveness. Such funds also do not lead to less drug use.
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.
Law enforcement agencies are specifically given the authority to seize property, for the example the Federal Bureau of Investigation [6] The power to search and seize property is typically granted in an instance via an instrument called a search warrant.
The cars of two Alabama women were seized for more than a year before courts found they were innocent owners. The Supreme Court says they had no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing.
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.