Petitioner contends that § 1963(a)(1) reaches only "interests in an enterprise" and does not authorize the forfeiture of mere "profits and proceeds". He rests his argument upon the propositions that criminal forfeitures are disfavored in law and that forfeiture statutes, as a consequence, must be strictly construed.
Washington, rather than hiding behind legalistic justifications, proudly outlined his vision of forfeiture: that its scope was boundless, that mere "indicators" were enough to trigger it, and that warfare was an apt analogy for the pursuit of cash, cars, and even iPods from drivers whom he deemed suspicious.
Civil forfeiture--where the police may seize property upon the mere suspicion that it may have some connection to criminal activity--threatens the property rights of all Americans.
Mr. Justice STORY, writing in 1883, said: 'This process is rarely recur ed to in America, and it has never yet been formally put into operation by any positive authority of congress, under the national government in mere cases of misdemeanor; though common enough in civil prosecutions for penalties and forfeitures.' Story, Const.
Civil forfeiture is a process that allows law enforcement to claim property on the mere suspicion that it is connected to a crime.
Asset forfeiture is controversial because it allows police to seize property or money on the mere suspicion that it is connected to illegal activity.
Under civil forfeiture laws, the government can take your home, your business, your money virtually anything based on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing.
Civil asset forfeiture is the policy that allows cops to seize your money and property on the mere suspicion that you've committed a crime.
Known as "civil asset forfeiture," this practice has become increasingly controversial because police are empowered to take someone's stuff on the mere suspicion that it was acquired illegally no arrest or charges are necessary.
Civil forfeiture is different.
