The Pros And Cons Of Civil Asset Forfeiture

997 Words4 Pages
Concerning Civil asset forfeiture and if it is something that is a relevant tool in order to fight crime, its something that has been known to be extremely controversial to say the least. First to define what forfeiture is and what are the purposes behind it; basically it is where local, federal, or state law enforcement will end up seizing property in the event where they feel there is considerable amount of suspicion that is connected to a crime that law enforcement feels they are guilty regardless of whether they have been convicted of the crime said law enforcement feels they are guilty of.

Civil Asset forfeiture can have its positives and its negatives, these can work to the advantage of being beneficial towards a investigation of either a murder or evidence that leads to identity theft electronically. But the downside of these laws can be and should be looked at to see if they contain any valid constitutionality of their practice; because if indeed they are then this can open up to being a violation of the fourth amendment with unreasonable search and seizure. The key element in the civil forfeiture law is "if law enforcement feels the individual is in possession of said property is connected to crime they are investigating; also with the fact they can keep the property it is allowed to be used for the benefit of giving it to the benefits and salaries for all entitled law enforcement personnel.

With that being said, its seem very unfair that someone whom gets cleared

More about The Pros And Cons Of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Get Access