Restore property rights stolen by drug warriors

[renegades]

Restore property rights stolen by drug warriors
The Detroit News
The Michigan Supreme Court has an opportunity to reconnect the idea of punishment with actual convictions for crimes. The so-called drug war has separated the two -- in violation of an essential feature of Anglo-American law.

Under the rules of the drug war, property can be seized from citizens without their being found guilty of a crime. The government gets away with this by calling the seizures "civil" forfeitures. There's nothing civil about them.
This week, the state Supreme Court heard arguments about the seizure of more than $180,000 from the rented car of Tamika Smith in 2002. She was headed west on Interstate 94 and was stopped for speeding. She was also driving with a suspended license.
A state trooper searched her car, without her consent, and found the money in a backpack in the trunk. No drugs, guns or other illegal material was found in the car. Nevertheless, the money was seized.
A trial judge acknowledged that the money was seized improperly, in violation of Smith's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
Nevertheless, following testimony that I-94 is a corridor for the illicit drug trade, which is a cash business, the trial judge allowed the forfeiture.
It was also shown that Smith at the time did not have a large amount in savings and had on several occasions rented a car for short trips to Chicago.
All of this is suspicious. But it is not conclusive.
Smith was not carrying illegal drugs or guns. The only thing police could show was that Smith was speeding and driving with a suspended license. These are not $180,000 offenses.
Her role as a possible drug money courier, for the purposes of this case, remains police speculation. She was not convicted of anything related to the drug trade.
Still, under Michigan law, it is now too much to ask of police and prosecutors that they actually obtain a conviction in a criminal case before they seize property.
The fact that they can keep the seized money for their own budgets is not thought to be too much of an incentive to engage in illegal searches and take things without warrants.
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? What happened to the burden of proof being on the state?
These foundations of American law have been given up in the course of our failed "war on drugs."
The state Supreme Court in this case has a chance to restore these rights. They need not look far for the authority to restore them. They're right in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...703070313/1008

***It is disgrace that one could lose a $30,000 car if swim own it and the police find a $5 bag of pot due to zero tolerance. If swim pick up a prositute swim loses car. They take them that night of the offence, and like the article says where is presumpton of innonence? Also is this is too harsh of punishment for such a small crime that takes someone's only mode of transportation. Swim remembers being pulled over in Ohio and the cop saw swim's melatonin capsules with the cap open and thought they were caps were repacked with coke. He did not have a damn test kit with him so swim was taken down to the police station and his car impounded. Swim got out the next day but it took 4 weeks to get swim's car back for the impoundment lot. That is how long it took to test the compound and which came back negative for drugs. Total injustice.

[stoneinfocus]

Ja, but then agaun, cocaine is such a dangerous drugs.. do you have childrenß -what if they took a line now and then? I would give my car for that! *lol* just kiddin´