Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
From 2005 to 2010, government seizures of assets from both criminals as well as innocent citizens went from $1.25 billion to $2.50 billion. [15] In 2012, over $4.4 billion were seized through forfeiture [44] as compared to an estimated $4.7 billion Americans suffered as losses from criminal burglary. [45]
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. [1] While this principle had been outlined in other cases, such as Mapp v.
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.
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "to consign to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury") is a legal form of seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law. [1]
In Texas, figuring out whether a private citizen can make an arrest is a complicated question. Generally, however, the answer is yes, but the law is very limited, according to Texas criminal ...
First on the list is property tax reform to close a loophole in current law enabling local jurisdictions to jack up property taxes. “I want at least $10 billion in new property tax relief ...
Property under the Fifth Amendment includes contractual rights stemming from contracts between the United States, a U.S. state or any of its subdivisions and the other contract partner(s), because contractual rights are property rights for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. [98] The United States Supreme Court held in Lynch v.