It Ain't Stealing When Government Does It

So you think government can't take your property without first convicting you of a crime?  Think again.

The federal government wants to seize the Motel Caswell, owned and operated for the past 30 years by Russ Caswell and his wife, because a tiny fraction (.05 percent) of the people who stayed at the motel between 2001 and 2008 were arrested for drug crimes on the property. Local and state authorities who investigated those crimes have never accused the Caswells of any wrongdoing.

If the government succeeds in taking the Caswell's business from them, the bounty from the forfeiture would be split among the very law enforcement agencies attempting to take the property through a program called "equitable sharing," in which the local agency would get 80 percent of the proceeds and the federal government would keep the rest; the Caswells, who have worked their entire adult lives to build and grow this business and who are relying on this business for their retirement, would end up with nothing.

But that's OK, because they didn't build that.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

But, seriously, you know what seems "equitable" to me?  If the Caswells get to keep their entire business, and government bureaucrats keep their greedy paws off it.

This money could be used to pad the budget of the police department, thus giving it a direct financial incentive not to pursue justice, but rather to "police for profit," which is exactly what is going on in the Caswell case. The civil forfeiture action against Caswell family is one of the most outrageous demonstrations of the abuse of forfeiture nationwide.

"Civil forfeiture treats innocent property owners like the Caswells worse than criminals," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney on the case. "Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken, but once the government targets a property for forfeiture an owner must prove himself innocent to get it back: This turns the American idea that you're innocent until proven guilty on its head and is one of the main perversions of the legal system we're fighting against in this case."

 One would think that this would be a clear-cut, slam-dunk case.  After all, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution states...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

And the 5th Amendment states...

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Pretty straight-forward, right?  Yes... if, and only if, one uses logic, reason and common sense; all of which are rare in any large bureaucracy.  And government is the biggest bureaucracy of all.