General Categories > Laws and Legislation

LB1106

<< < (3/3)

DenmanShooter:

--- Quote from: Sandhillian on April 05, 2016, 10:35:25 AM --- throughout this process prosecutors and law enforcement officers have been made out to be overzealous property snatchers.  That characterization could not be farther from the truth.
--- End quote ---

Here is the problem with your statement. While we may not see much of this activity in Nebraska, without legislation prohibiting it, how can we avoid the issue of someone traveling with cash being forced to forfeit that cash simply because the LEO says it is related to drug activity or other illegal activity even though no drugs were present or other illegal activity was occurring.  Many, many cases across the country have been documented of persons being deprived of their property without any more due process than because an LEO said so.

It seems, in so many circumstances today, the intent and reason for the fourth amendment has been forgotten and it is tossed aside merely for convenience sake because "drugs".  If laws are needed to enforce the highest law of the land because a few overzealous law enforcers forget it is there, then that is not the fault of the citizens and should not be pressed against otherwise law abiding citizens.  Unfortunately, so many otherwise bright people seem to ignore the highest law and make their own laws superseding it and force people to rely on justice system to make it right. Causing undue hardship, expense and lengthy trials to make right.   Drugs are a terrible problem but just because someone decides to carry a certain sum of cash should not make them immediately subject to forfeiture. 

Whether this law will make it right or not, I do not know.  But until this practice of abuse by law enforcement stops nationwide it will have to do for now.  Stop giving a slap on the wrist to those who are dealing drugs. Let LEO's do the job they are supposed to do and stop making revenue enhancers out of them.

Amendment IV

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 no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sandhillian:
DenmanShooter,

We're on the same page.  I agree that there needs to be a criminal conviction before property is forfeited.  However, at this stage, we can only make changes to the state process, not the federal process.  LB1106, as supported by prosecutors, law enforcement, and civil liberties groups, was intended to fix state forfeiture so it was workable and was an alternative to the federal forfeiture system that has generated so many headlines nationally.  The opposition wasn't to LB1106, rather it was directed toward the amendment put forth by the Judiciary Committee that included provisions that just don't work when put into practice, either because they aren't clear about what is required or because they are contrary to federal law.  There was no opposition to any of the firearm provisions added by the Judiciary Committee.  No matter how you or I feel about federal law, the Nebraska Legislature can't change it or pass laws that conflict with it.  If they do, that just creates confusion and puts law enforcement in a no win situation.

I hope when this bill comes back up some additional amendments will be filed to fix the problems caused by the committee amendment.  If that happens, then we'll have a bill that everyone should be able to support.

Mudinyeri:
Sandhillian, is it fair to say that numerous law enforcement agencies, including the AG's office and a good number of country attorneys, supported LB1106?  Is it also fair to say that most of those same individuals and agencies did not support AM2389?  Is it also fair to say that AM2389 (further) limits the ability of law enforcement agencies to confiscate certain property?

Finally, is it fair to say that the statement you quoted may be true in some cases?  Are you familiar with the position of 100% of the law enforcement agencies and individuals who were against AM2389?  If so, can you absolutely say that none of those individuals or agencies were dissatisfied with AM2389's further limitation of their ability to confiscate private property?

My counsel - for both you and the board - is that absolute statements are rarely absolutely accurate.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page