Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:13 am
Time: 3:13 am
Results for standard of proof
1 results foundAuthor: Skorup, Jarrett Title: Civil Forfeiture in Michigan: A Review and Recommendations for Reform Summary: Introduction The Constitution of the United States says that a state may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But all over the country law enforcement agencies are using the practice of civil forfeiture to seize money and property from people who will never be convicted of a crime, and in many cases, never even charged with a crime. This is a particularly big problem in Michigan, where forfeiture laws have been rated as among the worst in the nation. Civil forfeiture enables the government to take ownership of private property by claiming that the property was involved in illegal activity. Unlike criminal forfeiture proceedings, however, civil forfeiture does not require the owner of the property to be convicted of a crime in order for assets to be transferred to the government. Civil forfeiture also employs a lower standard of proof for prosecutors to establish guilt, making it easier for the government to demonstrate that the property was “guilty” and eligible to be forfeited to the state. Further, local police agencies in Michigan directly benefit from civil forfeiture, as they typically retain the proceeds from forfeited property. This arrangement creates an incentive for law enforcement to seize property, because they can use the revenue to pad their budgets — a scheme dubbed "policing for profit." Some police departments may even become dependent on this revenue. There are several options policymakers should consider to improve Michigan’s civil forfeiture laws and protect the rights of individuals: (1) Eliminate civil forfeiture and only allow criminal forfeiture. This would mean that the government could seize and take possession of property only in criminal proceedings and would require a criminal conviction of an individual before property can be forfeited; (2) Increase transparency reporting requirements for property that is forfeited under current forfeiture laws; (3) Reduce “policing for profit” by redirecting proceeds from forfeited property away from local police agencies. Details: Midland, MI: Mackinac Center, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2019 at: https://www.mackinac.org/forfeiture Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2015/s2015-05.pdf Shelf Number: 154234 Keywords: Civil Forfeiture Criminal Forfeiture Forfeiture Housing Crisis Law Enforcement Local Police Agencies Michigan Police Departments Policing for Profit Private Property Seizure Standard of Proof |