Arguments Against Civil Forfeiture

Under the model penal code Dan was justified in pursuing Al to retake his stolen property, but may not be justified for defense of property under common law jurisdictions.

4. Evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from trial whether or not the police acted in good faith?

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

There are 2 versions of Call of the wild, there is a movie version and a book version.

In the United States “civil forfeiture" is a legal procedure which might be brought during or after criminal accusations are recorded in the court. It is a court proceeding recorded against a property or against a person which allows law enforcement to take away cash and or property. Based on the article End of Forfeiture (2017), 87% of federal forfeitures were not criminals but civil, the government didn’t have to convict or charge anyone to take the property. Once the U.S. Lawyer's Office gets a referral from a seizing organization of a seized resource case, that office has 90 days to either document a civil legal case or incorporate the seized resource in a criminal arraignment and name it for criminal Forfeiture. On the off chance that a civil case is not documented within those 90 days, the CAFRA "capital punishment" will keep the United States from continuously recording a civil Forfeiture case. If the advantage is incorporated into a prosecution and the respondent is later vindicated or has a conviction turned around to offer, the property can't be surrendered. Thus, numerous U.S. prosecutors record a suspicious civil forfeiture activity and incorporate the property for criminal forfeiture in an arraignment (Weld, n.d, 2011.).

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The rise of civil asset forfeiture has proved to be one of the most valuable tools in seizing profits from drug cartels and white-collar criminals while helping to reimburse victims of fraud. In essence, there does not seem to be much wrong with the idea of civil asset forfeiture; it is a legal tool which allows law enforcement officials to seize property that is believed to have been involved in certain criminal activity. This property can then be used to pay for technologies which help law enforcement agencies combat further illegal activities. However, civil forfeiture all too often targets the homes, cars, financial assets, and other belongings of innocent people who never committed or are charged with a crime.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general warrants, British soldiers were allowed to enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves. The policy was reminiscent of today’s civil asset forfeiture laws.”(Balko, R, 2013) The civil asset forfeiture statute is an asset seizure of possessions that are alleged proceeds from criminal activity. Criminal activity over the decades had developed and more organized. Criminals would get their mandatory minimum sentence and the crime enterprise would just continue, but legislators’ passed a statute to dismantle entire criminal organizations and it’s known as Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations or R.I.C.O. Passed in 1970 it was used in the prosecution of Sicilian mafia in New York city. Instead of prosecuting criminals individually such as solders and capo, it was effective in shutting down entire criminal organizations. R.I.C.O statute appeared to be effective on the war on drugs. The combination of the two policies provided incentives to battle the war on drug. Assets were disseminated among various law enforcement departments, putting more officers on the streets, obtaining newer police vehicles and countless equipment for law

Comes Plaintiff, Constance Wolf F/K/A Constance Wolfgram, by counsel, and for her complaint states as follows:

of police paid off to look the other way while they went about their business.

When people think of democracy the first thing that comes to mind is normally the democracy of today. However, democracy was different during the ancient times. The textbook states that “The Athenian democracy was a direct democracy in which the citizens made the laws” (Perry 60). Despite the flaws of today’s democracy, I think that democracy is the best form of ancient government because the people were able to vote on the issues.

The subject of this evaluation is a young man named Jeff Randell from the TV show Clarence. He is white, male, 9 years old, and from Arizona. He attends elementary school, has two loving mothers, and two best friends, Clarence and Sumo. His everyday life is comprised of attending school and doing well with his grades. He gets all of his homework done and stays extremely organized while also enjoying many normal child activities such as board games, video games, movies, going outside, using his imagination, and generally having fun. Jeff also enjoys activities that are not so popular among children such as doing taxes, making stop motion films, baking, cleaning, organizing, and sticking to a strict schedule. Overall, he is different from the