From about 1989- 1999! French road lynch road outer drive Mt Elliot good times

John Oliver describes civil forfeiture.

I see nothing ☝��

This isn't just Detroit.
The US civil forfeiture laws are out of control with no oversight.
Just going through TSA security can trigger it. They took $20K+ from some guy flying to buy a truck. It was drug money, so they said, but no charges.
It's clearly sanctioned fraud with all the wrong incentives for the LEO's.

Holy F-ing Crap!!! The art gallery automobile seizure in this video at the 7:50 mark is frightening. And people roll their eyes when someone "exaggerates" and says "police state". Civil forfeiture exists in Canada but my understanding of the tenet is that the items in question must be directly linked to a crime - as in on-paper, court documents. Although we also have a 'Civil Remedies Act' in Ontario that has been the source of a few questionable seizures.

I certainly will never bring cash to the U.S. again to buy a car, that is for sure.

Video of another forfeiture case. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0...aP4zbvtcF09Tms

I wonder if Law Enforcement could seize anything under a lease, or if seized could they even keep it or sell it if a lien from a lease was registered against it. I would think it would be near impossible for them to seize or dispose of a car with a registered lien and a formal lease.

That's how businesses protect money from lawsuits these days is by channeling cash into leased fixtures within a business structure. Would likely work well to protect cars from seizure too I would think? Perhaps Lynn could comment on that?

This varies widely from State to State. I did a lot of research 30 years ago, and was able to get a guy's brand new Pontiac Grand Prix out of impound when the DA reviewed our position. Still a giant headache. I have not handled a civil forfeiture case since, but have always taken note when one pops up. In most cases, NO criminal conviction is required to support the forfeiture.

The history of civil forfeiture is fascinating. It actually has its roots in ecclesiastical law from the middle ages, when they thought that a thing that caused death was inherently evil (such as a runaway wagon, or a horse). Most ordinary citizens couldn't read or write and relied on the church to tell them what was right and wrong, which led to all kinds of abuses. The "thing" would be seized, and either destroyed, or sold and the proceeds used for some pious purpose. The "thing" was classified as deodand (given to God) to supposedly help right the wrong. England abandoned that line of thinking AFTER the Revolutionary War (around 1860 or so), but the US continued to follow. So, even though the English don't practice "deodand" law, we do, as part of the English Common Law. As with many things (not just in the law) the origins are lost to history, and we just keep on going "because that's the way we have always done it."

MOST of the civil cases in the last 50 years have been drug cases, and since the 90's funds used to finance terrorism.

There is some help coming from the US Supreme Court that is going to make it more difficult for States to use this. There may have been an even more helpful case since this one, but I don't have time to research it right now. Looks like the tide may be turning back to common sense.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vil-forfeiture

If you want to read an extreme case where a yacht was seized because marijuana was found on board, read this. The owner was in no way involved, and had no way to know that the guys renting the yacht would smoke a joint while there. Great dissent by William O. Douglas. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=6,37&as_vis=1
You will want to skip the first third of the opinion where they are deciding if a Puerto Rico law is a "state law".

Lynn, if property is placed in a trust is it mostly shielded from this abuse? I'm assuming with an irrevocable trust the asset would be pretty much untouchable from civil forfeiture, however, perhaps not too practical for most people to use.

Don't confuse exemption laws with forfeiture laws. Almost no correlation. In the yacht case above, it would not have mattered how title was held. The "owner" (in your example, the irrevocable trust) receives no protection unless they put forth an "innocent owner" defense that works.

Nothing placed in a revocable trust is protected from a potential creditor just by virtue of being in the trust. Much of what we own is exempt from a potential creditor under homestead laws. In OK, that means, home, one car, household goods and furnishings used for personal family and household use, 100 chickens, five milk cows and their calves, two horses, bridle and tack, all money held in retirement accounts (that's why the Goldman family could never attach OJ's pension money) tools used to make a living, etc. Placing those things in a revocable trust doesn't diminish that protections, but it doesn't increase it. However, I have seen more than one creditor's atty just give up when property is in trust, thinking that collecting would be much more difficult.

The basic rule is "If I can get to it, so can a potential creditor."

As for the irrevocable trust, I don't see how that makes any difference AS FAR AS HOW THE LAWS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS. If I loaned you my car, and you used it to transport drugs, it is subject to forfeiture, even if I had no idea what you were going to use it for. It makes no difference if I owe $50k on the car.

That is why I believe the 2019 Supreme Court ruling is such a big deal. I think once folks start using that as a defense, the states will back off. Problem is the legal system takes years to work out all the details. There is an old saying: The wheels of God's justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine. It is the same way with the legal system. Eventually some state (or municipality like Detroit) will cross paths with the wrong person in an especially grievous manner, and will be willing to take on the state or city in Federal Court. Once one state or city gets hit with a big damage verdict, everyone will back off.

Of course, this is just my opinion. These things take time. Look how long we have been trying to desegregate schools, even though Brown was decided almost 69 years ago, and ordered schools to desegregate "with all due speed".