Civil Forfeiture

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.).

In the scenario, three individuals, Joe, Larry, and Bob, were convicted criminals and who were speeding in a stolen vehicle, when they saw a group of rivals. Joe was in the passenger seat warning the others that he was going to shoot at the rival members with a weapon he concealed it in his waistband; Larry the driver, drove the vehicle closer to the opponents. At the stop sign, Bob, who was in the back seat, left the car because he was on parole and didn’t want to go back to imprisonment. Afterwards, Larry drove past the adversaries as Joe discharged a few shots; one individual was murder and the other was shot in the leg.

Even though civil forfeiture is a practice that happens all around the United States, it is a system that many say the police are able to abuse for their own profit. There have been numerous cases where many individuals have been locked in legal battles with the United States government trying to prove that their assets are indeed innocent and not involved with any crimes. Many feel that the civil forfeiture is a form of “policing for profit” especially since many of the assets are used under the Equitable Sharing Program. (Crawford) police can stop motorists, possibly under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant,

Larceny is defined as the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the takers own use. To say it plainly, larceny is stealing someone else’s property. No matter what reasons there are behind stealing, it is still wrong. I imagine there are many reasons for a person to decide that it is worth the risk to steal something. There are certain people who do not think this is wrong to steal someone else’s property. A large part of this is because people do not understand who or what they are harming when they steal. Most people who commit larceny do not look at the big picture and realize what they are doing and how it affects

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

There are many positives that come with the technology and use of predictive policing. Police are preventing many crimes. The United

Modern American CAF derives it’s roots from the policies used by police and prosecutors during the time of alcohol prohibition. Law enforcement during early 20th century would often use civil asset forfeiture against the cars, guns, money, and other property of the people who were busted smuggling liquor. Although alcohol prohibition died 80 years ago with the passage of the 21st and the repeal of the 18th amendments, the most common usage of CAF still lies within the realm of enforcing prohibition laws. Civil asset forfeiture is primarily used to fight drug crimes, especially narcotics trafficking (Van Den Berg, 873). Since the passage of the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Reform Act civil asset forfeiture has been expanded by law enforcement in order to meet the additional billions of dollars of strain that the war on drugs places on the budgets of city and county law enforcement agencies around the nation (Ann- Yu Chi, 1639).

Requires that the asset forfeiture notices explain in plain language the steps someone must take to contest the forfeiture and his or her legal rights. [Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(f)]

In order to determine and validate the grade of the offense as grand larceny, the value of the bobblehead must at least be the value of the statutory amount stated in the Virginia Code §18.2-95(ii). The burden of the Commonwealth is to prove that the object in question satisfies this requisite value beyond a reasonable doubt. Parker, 489 S.E.2d at 482. The object of larceny meets the statutory amount required for a charge of grand larceny if the fair market value of the object in question, “not the entire property for which it is a part,” is equal to or greater than $200 at the time and place of the theft; however, the opinion testimony of the owner of the stolen goods and the original purchase price from a reasonable time prior, may be admissible, considering “due allowance for elements of depreciation.” See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 516 S.E.2d 475, 476 (Va. 1999); Parker, 489 S.E.2d at 482, 484, 483; Lester v. Commonwealth, 518 S.E.2d 318, 323, 322 (Va. Ct. App. 1999)

Michael Davies loves his job as a detective and loves the people around him, but the citizens of his community are scared of his fellow officers and Mike does not know why or how to fix it. Officer Davies goes to a police conference in Chicago to find out how to help his community, and after hearing about a useful device, he introduces the body camera idea to his Mayor. The mayor loved his idea because it protects the men and women on the force and the people of his fine city. The citizens of America everyday are scared of those who are supposed to protect them, and the cops are scared of doing their job. Law enforcers that have used excessive force to do their job can be stopped by one small device; a

!e use of stops and frisks has grown at an astounding rate – a more than 600

In this day and age, a corporation, family, or individual always has a potential risk of encountering fraud within their money supply. On average, fraud and abuse costs U.S. organizations more than $400 billion annually (Federal Bureau Investigation, 2010). Many may think that white collared crime is only money laundering or stealing, but that is only two out of the sum that countless culprits get away with. The term “white-collar crime,” originally coined in 1939 is synonymous with the full range of frauds committed by business and government professionals (Federal Bureau Investigation, 2010). These frauds include anything from bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, identity theft, corporate fraud to a wide number of threats all circling

Civil Forfeiture is a law that allows a police officer to seize control of a person’s belongings based on an assumption that the person broke the law. The officer does not need to prove that the person broke the law, simply stating that they believe the person was a lawbreaker is enough. This law is understandably contentious. Many people who claim their innocence have lost their life savings due to the civil forfeiture law.

Law enforcement imposes two types of forfeitures which direct the officials to act accordingly (Levinthal, 2012). The two forfeitures, criminal and civil, both have similarities, as well as, differences (Levinthal, 2012). Smith (2015) notes criminal forfeiture involves an action is conveyed as part of the persecution of an offender. The civil forfeiture relates to the unlawful use of property (Levinthal, 2012). The difference between the two, civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture is basically whether the fine is regarding an individual or a thing (Levinthal, 2012).

With tangible cash available, many underground operations are active due to the intractability of the cash being used to fund the operation. With the implementation of a smart card/chip all cash transactions can be easily recorded and traceable, making it difficult to operate unlawfully. Warwick also comments about the tangency between cash and criminal activity by stating “Most crimes are either committed to steal cash or use cash as a method of payment. Drug trafficking is conducted exclusively in cash. The bulk of tax evasion is hidden in cash transactions. Cash carried in purses and wallets continues to make everyone a potential robbery victim. Throughout history, cash, in coin or paper notes, was a problematic necessity for which there was no practical alternative. With the advent of EFT, however, the relative detriments of cash can be targeted, if not eliminated”. With a cashless society, making cash electronic has the potential of making workplaces and crime-ridden neighborhoods safer, reducing prison populations, and freeing up emergency rooms. The benefits of a cashless society outweigh the disadvantages and Warwick agrees to this as well by stating “No matter the exact format that a new electronic currency might take, it is difficult to imagine any other single innovation that has the potential of generating such profound social and economic