70% oppose gov't seizure of property without conviction

There is another thread on gamespot about police departments seizing cash from suspected criminals, but asset forfeiture laws go further than that: they can also seize vehicles and homes.

According to a Rasmussen poll: "Americans strongly believe someone needs to be convicted of a crime before their property can be seized, even though that’s contrary to current federal law and police practice".

Sen. Rand Paul's website explains the issue in more detail:

"Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property."

Rand Paul has introduced a bill, called the FAIR Act, that would change this situation: "The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund"

According to Rand Paul the current practice violates the Fifth Amendment.

What are your thoughts/opinion's?

I think the FAIR act is a good idea. I don't think the government should be able to seize property unless the person owning the property is convicted, though there are probably situation where they should be able to temporarily hold onto the property before conviction (though be unable to sell the property or keep the revenue derived from holding the property). Also I'm leaning towards the view that houses really shouldn't be subjected to asset forfeiture, especially if they've been in the family for generations or if there are other people (such as a spouse and kids) living there. My guess is that if the house is in both the criminal's and the criminal's spouse's name that may prevent the house from being seized.

Also don't a lot of drug dealers lease their cars so that they can't be seized?

But in those cases the gov't only be able to hold the property before conviction, they shouldn't be able to sell it.

The FAIR act would require more evidence for it to be seized. I think overall the government shouldn't be able to profit off of the property unless the person is convicted, but there are circumstances where they should be able to hold onto the property temporarily while the trial is going on.

Government sponsored hustlin' lol