[Winona Online Democracy]
Paul,
Which statute are you referring to? I had not heard of this one. This is
the preferred procedure for law enforcement, and they have gotten both the
Federal and State legislatures to pass laws regarding forfeiture of goods in
at least two types of cases. One is very old and subjects the owner to
forfeiture of guns and/or cars used in game violations. The other one is
fairly new. That is that the property where illicit drugs are found can be
forfeited to law enforcement. They sell the property and keep the money for
further drug enforcement. There does not seem to be any auditing to see how
the money is actually spent. The way that the constitution is met is to
give the forfeitee the right to sue the government within a specified time.
I have not researched the matter carefully enough to analyse it further.
Your description sounds like a forfeiture statute. There usually is a way
to sue to get the property back, but it becomes expensive. It was probably
cheaper for your friend to simply buy another computer. In my estimation,
these forfeiture laws should be severely restricted. They seem to be the
epitome of unreasonable searches and seizures.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Double <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: [Winona] Unreasonable searches and seizures
> I would like to expand the discussion on law enforcement's ability, in
> Minnesota, to seize computer equipment in one's home or business, with a
> warrant, based on the "assumption" that there "may" be information
> contained on the hard drive that may be important in convicting another
> person or persons because of e-mail believed to be stored on the hard
drive
> and to hold the computer equipment for whatever time "they feel necessary"
> without the injured party being able to challenge, by Minnesota Statute,
> either the seizure or the right to establish a reasonable discovery period
> which would then require law enforcement to return the PC.
>
> I know of a case where a personal computer has now been held for 9 months
> and the injured party still has not got their computer back or any
specific
> date that they can expect it. The offer was even made to give them the
hard
> drive to get the PC returned. It forced the owner to buy a new computer
as
> they needed it in their daily business and job.
>
> Paul Double
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:07:03 -0500
> >From: "Phil Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >The recent comments on searches at school and other places have turned on
> the Constitution's protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
> The key here (and in other case law that I deal with in my city planning
> career) is what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable." If Judge Peterson or
> anyone else has good definitions of these words I would be delighted to
see
> them. Or is it just up to the interpretation of whomever sits on the
bench
> in any given year?
> >
> >- Phil Carlson
>
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
