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.
Critics argue that criminals are treated better in the courts than innocent owners who have property seized, since criminals are often told they have a right to an attorney, and that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is much higher in criminal trials than in civil trials. [31] Burden of proof is shifted to victims to prove ...
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 ...
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 ...
[citation needed] In civil forfeiture cases, the US government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third-party claimant. The burden is on the government to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. If it is successful, the owner may yet prevail by establishing an ...
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 Supreme Court refuses to tighten the rules when police seize cars.
The property-owner need not be convicted of that crime; if officers find drugs in a house, they can take cash from the house and possibly the house itself. Commentators have said these rules provide an incentive for law enforcement officers to focus on drug-related crimes rather than crimes against persons, such as rape and homicide.