Unfortunately, the asset forfeiture is not always so clear cut.
"Asset forfeiture distorts law enforcement priorities; instead of chasing violent criminals, some police target wealthy citizens. Early in the morning of October 2, 1992, a small army of 31 people from eight law enforcement agencies smashed their way into 61-year-old Donald Scott’s home on his 200-acre Trail’s End Ranch in Malibu, California. The raiders were equipped with automatic weapons, flak jackets, and a battering ram.[20] Scott’s wife screamed when she saw the intruders, Scott came out of the bedroom with a pistol in his hands, and police gunned him down. After killing Scott, the agents thoroughly searched his house and ranch but failed to find any illicit drugs.
Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury investigated the raid and issued a report in 1993 that concluded that a “primary purpose of the raid was a land grab by the [Los Angeles County] Sheriff’s Department.”[21] Bradbury revealed that at a briefing before the raid took place, government agents were informed that the ranch had been appraised at $1.1 million and that “80 acres sold for $800,000 in 1991 in the same area.”[22] The law officers at the briefing were told that if they discovered as few as “14 marijuana plants” on the ranch, the entire property could be seized.[23] Bradbury also concluded that a Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy had lied to obtain a search warrant and declared: “This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant. This guy should not be dead.”[24] Los Angeles officials claimed that a confidential informant told them that marijuana was being grown on Scott’s ranch, but the informant denied ever making such a statement.[25]"
Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman...rights#ixzz2b3KUwYTu
A man was killed in bogus search because, admittedly, the sheriff's office wanted his property. The link show several more such forfeitures that are out of control. If it were stacks of cash found with drugs and the cars and property directly owned by the suppliers, I'd have little problem. But, like the no knock warrants, its gone over board. Warrants should detail why there is no knock. If circumstances prove to be false, evidence would not be allowed If no evidence, the police are liable for all damages. Need to be more controls on property seized, as well.
Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman...rights#ixzz2b3KUwYTu