This is Outrageous!

Blatant Violations of the Fourth Amendment
Jurisdictions Confiscate Property of Americans with Impunity

Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated...."

From Wikipedia (retrieved September 30, 2009):

In recent years, such has been the wealth generated from economic crime and, in particular, from drug-related crime, that a confiscation or forfeiture element has been added to the criminal process in many jurisdictions. The need for a broader response than a solely criminal one was recognized by the U. S. President’s Commission on Organized Crime as long ago as 1986.

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the U.S. Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant.

Once a government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. [!]

A [prevalent] form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway Police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such confiscations.

The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

Comment by Nate Segal:

I first became aware of this outrageous behavior when I read one of the articles "That's Outrageous!" in Reader's Digest around the year 1986 when the new laws were enacted — this "broader response" added to the criminal process.

Have we ordinary citizens noticed these broad violations of our Constitutional rights?