If the ACLU hadn't spent the last 40 years looking under every rock for any perceived or imagined racial slight, they might have had this whole civil forfeiture thing thrown out nationwide by now. But apparently innocent people like the guy in the article have no one to fight for them against this police money-making scheme, which in the private sector would be called "extortion" and would result in people behind bars (or at least in minimum security country clubs).

All symptoms of the same culture (or disease) of state entitlement wreaking havoc everywhere else.

I dislike acts like these, and especially Imminent Domain laws. We passed one here in Florida a while back saying that if the government can use your property for a better purpose, they can take it from you (they have to give you money in return, but I doubt it'll be what the intrinsic value of your property was). Last time they were talking about doing bus lanes here in Jacksonville, there were neighborhoods that they were going to have to use it to buy properties on the side of the road so they could make the bus lanes. Scummy.

There's been no talk of bus lanes since, however that could be due to the economy more than outrage.

I have reported my own experience. In both 2007 and last October, cops simply pulled me over on the Interstates, lying about why they stopped me, as an excuse to examine me and see if I might be a druggie. It has also happened twice to my son. They just make up something. In Kentucky the fat liar told me he clocked me at 70 in a 55 zone, which was a total lie. I was on cruise control and within the 55 limit until I left the 55 zone.

If you doubt it, Google Tenaha, Texas, where they took it to even the next level.

A lot of people worry about safety in Mexico. I let out a sigh of relief when I cross the border into Reynosa. All I have to worry about is thugs with guns, not thugs with guns who also have the full weight of the entire law enforcement system behind them.

You cannot get people to listen because they assume cops are honest, and you MUST have done something wrong.

There is an organization which is well aware of this evil. It's called Oath Keepers, and it includes cops and military people who know those turkeys are violating their oaths and are trying to stop it.

This started with the drug crimes in the 80s, at least here in FL. A Cuban guy I know had his house seized because he happened to be at a drug dealer's house when they raided it. They arrested everyone and seized all their property. Eventually, he was cleared, but it took so long and was so costly, that he lost his house to foreclosure. I could never understand how they could seize property before a conviction.

And don't even get me started on eminent domain. Actually, that's the lesser evil. The main way they seize your property now is through regulation and moratoriams. You get to keep the property in your name, pay taxes for the privilege, while they essentially deprive you of all reasonable usage.

LS nails it; Florida and all of the states along I-95 have been doing this since the early '80s. It was not uncommon for these states to pull a car over, find "drug residue" in them somewhere, seize the car -- and then never bother to file charges. The owner would then have to sue if they wanted the car back. In many cases, the seized cars were older cars that were worth less than what it would cost in legal fees to get the car back, so the owners just forfeited them. The cars went to auction and the police department pocketed the cash.

And I've written here before about a forfeiture tactic that was widely used then -- prosecutors filing lawsuits against property. Not against the property owner, against the property itself. Seriously, I remember seeing filing papers reproduced in the Ft. Lauderdale News for a lawsuit titled "State of New Jersey vs. One Ford Tractor". Of course, the property couldn't defend itself, so the states always won these suits, usually on summary judgment. I don't know if any states are still doing this or not.

Using property for roads is at least the intended purpose of emminent domain.

Now you have places that attempt to reclass property as "blight" seize it, and then resell it to private enterprise to use for commercial purposes.

A lawyer for the government in, I believe it was the key london case, argued that property rights were dependent upon how much you could pay in taxes. If another private entity could afford to pay more taxes on your property, then the government should be able to take it from you, and put it into the hands of another private entity.

Bad juju that. If I had been that judge, I'd have thrown the lawyer in jail for contempt of court for making such a ludicrous argument.

There was a town not too far from me, don't remember exactly which one, but they tried to seize a bunch of rambler homes downtown - no, not like what you think of as a downtown - to make way for complexes so the town could conform with growth laws. The home owners somehow managed to get it to jury trial...and while the town could do that, the jury found the proper payment (which by law has to happen at time of control change) was much higher. The big one was that the property had to be valued at the new zoning (no longer single family). The jury also ruled that properties weren't "blight" for cost evaluation purposes - that is, they were in good market condition. It didn't end up going through because the town couldn't afford the upfront payout.

That's exactly what's coming back to bite the supporters of these laws. They can't afford it. In my county, several landowners have already won substantial damages for their regulatory "takings", which we taxpayers will now have to pay, and there are other cases on the way to the Supreme Court. Many of these judgments are in the millions.

Constitutionally, the state can't seize someone's land without just compensation. A car is different, though it really shouldn't be. But if anything will stop this, it's the proper interpretation of law, which is that property rights are sacred in this country. Our founding fathers understood that whoever controlled private property controlled liberty.

The biggest misconception in this country is that you can "punish" certain entities without it impacting all of us. The drug war lead many to vote in laws of seizure like this only to punish drug dealers, not realizing that it could also result in their own property being seized in a traffic stop. In FL, we have so many environmentalists successfully enacting laws to fight "big devolopers", but, in reality, those same laws effect every old, retired couple who simply wants to add a screened porch onto their house.

In a democracy, it's hard to target specific entities without the same laws impacting all of us.

Lovelysoul, whenever any law is brought in that erodes civil liberties it is invariably sold to the public on the grounds that it will only be used to target the usual suspects and low-lifes, and the average law-abiding citizen going about their business will not be inconvenienced.

For example, in some Australian states they are currently pushing through laws to give police increased powers to stop and search people without reasonable grounds to believe they have been involved in criminal activity. But don't worry, assures the Police Commissioner, they will only be used in a targeted manner in the worst crime hot spots.

As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would trade liberty for security deserve and will get neither liberty nor security.

"You cannot get people to listen because they assume cops are honest, and you MUST have done something wrong."

That is probably true. I suspect the majority of the population are fairly naive about the extent of police corruption and malpractice.

Until people actually have a run-in with an unscrupulous officer, they don't really get it.

Whenever substantial inquiries have been undertaken into police corruption, they have invariably uncovered a great deal. But such inquiries are rarely undertaken because the political will to do so is generally absent. Governments don't want to upset vested interests too much, and they don't want to undermine public confidence in law enforcement either.

The ACLU really doesn't seem very concerned with property rights.

I don't know why. But there it is.

Read this book if you want to get really frightened by civil forfeiture.