[Winona Online Democracy]
I had heard about asset-forfeiture laws in other states, but I don't know
the MN statutes in much detail. The stories I have heard are quite
disturbing--property simply disappearing into a government black hole and
never being recovered. This is what happens when we aren't vigilant;
government uses all the latitud we, the public, give it, and in my opinion
we've given it a bit too much in the area of taking our property. I would
guess also, that since Mr. Double's friend was not, I'm assuming, the one
charged with a crime, no sort of trial was held before he was deprived of
his property.
The selling of seized property would seem to represent another case of
criminal law being used as a revenue source rather than for community
protection, similar to the cameras recently proposed to catch motorists
running red lights. One official's comments on the proposal was that it
might "pay for itself" by causing the issuance of more tickets, givng the
government more revenue from the fines. Even when the system only appears
to be working for our benefit, it is still disquieting when such pretenses
are finally abandoned.
>From: "Duane M. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Paul Double" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Winona] Unreasonable searches and seizures
>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:21:40 -0500
>
>[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]
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
----------------
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]
