Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court refuses to tighten the rules when police seize cars.
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 ...
But media investigations and civil liberties groups have documented for years how innocent owners like Lara bear the burden of going to court to prove their innocence after their property is ...
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.
Once done, the forfeiture case is fully litigated in court. [23] In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; it is possible for the government to prevail by proving that someone other than the owner used the property to commit a crime (this claim seems outdated and as such would be contradicted by the "innocent owner ...
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 ...
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.