Forfeiture Law in Focus: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark Rulings
The landscape of forfeiture law has been significantly shaped by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. These rulings, in the cases of United States v Darden-Mosby and Culley v Marshall, provide crucial insights and establish new precedents that will impact future forfeiture proceedings.
Attorney Fees and Right to Counsel
Another significant trend in forfeiture jurisprudence is the recognition that the right to counsel can supersede forfeiture statutes. Courts have increasingly ruled that individuals facing forfeiture actions are entitled to use their seized assets to pay for legal representation. This trend reinforces the importance of ensuring that defendants have access to legal counsel to defend their rights effectively.
Michigan Forfeiture Laws: Recent Changes and Requirements
Michigan has implemented several changes to its forfeiture laws to enhance due process and protect property owners’ rights. Key statutes governing forfeiture in Michigan include:
Requirement for Conviction: Michigan law now mandates a criminal conviction for forfeiture actions involving personal property valued under $50,000 (excluding cash) unless the owner consents to the forfeiture.
Filing Deadlines: Law enforcement agencies must file a forfeiture action within 28 days of seizing property valued over $50,000. If the property is valued under this amount, a conviction is required before proceeding with forfeiture.
Claims of Interest: Property owners must file a claim of interest within 20 days of receiving notice of the forfeiture action. For property valued over $50,000, no claim of interest is required before the police are obliged to either return the property or forward the case to the prosecutor’s office.
United States v Darden-Mosby
Background: The DEA conducted a search of the defendant’s home and vehicle, uncovering an unregistered firearm, drug paraphernalia, and 13.6 grams of cocaine. Significant amounts of cash were seized from various locations, including $112,690 from the defendant’s bedroom. Additional sums were seized during a subsequent traffic stop. The court’s decision hinged on the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate sources of the seized funds.
Court’s Holdings and Reasoning
Cash in the Safe and Shoebox: $92,470 – The Sixth Circuit upheld the forfeiture, emphasizing the presence of bulk cash in proximity to drug paraphernalia and an unregistered firearm. The defendant’s history of dealing in cash for drug transactions, contrasted with banking his legitimate business earnings, further solidified the court’s decision. The court applied established principles, asserting that bulk currency, drug convictions, unexplained legitimate income, and proximity to drugs collectively justified forfeiture.
Cash in and on the Dresser: $20,220 –Here, the defendant successfully demonstrated a legitimate source for the funds. Evidence of withdrawals for home repairs and the absence of drug residue led the court to rule against forfeiture. This part of the decision underscores the importance of substantiating the legitimate origins of contested assets.
Cash from the Traffic Stop: $2,500 –Despite administrative forfeiture proceedings, the court determined that criminal forfeiture was not applicable due to procedural dismissals by the government. This nuanced aspect highlights the complexities in distinguishing between criminal and administrative forfeiture pathways.
Culley v Marshall: Balancing Timeliness and Due Process
Background: In Alabama, vehicles were seized under civil forfeiture laws after their owners lent them to individuals who were subsequently arrested for drug offenses. The central issue was whether the lack of preliminary hearings violated due process rights.
Supreme Court’s Holdings and Reasoning
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due process does not necessitate separate preliminary hearings before the main forfeiture proceedings. The court emphasized that timely hearings sufficed, drawing parallels to the speedy trial rights of defendants. The decision referenced historical practices and legislative intent from the period when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, reinforcing that preliminary hearings were not a due process requirement for personal property seizures.
Attorney Michael Komorn
State / Federal Legal Defense
With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.
Timbs v Indiana: A Landmark Decision on Excessive Fines
Background: In Timbs v Indiana, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This case involved the seizure of a Land Rover worth $42,000, which Timbs had purchased with money from his father’s life insurance policy. The state seized the vehicle after Timbs was convicted of drug offenses, even though the maximum fine for his crime was $10,000.
Court’s Holdings and Reasoning
The Court ruled that the seizure of Timbs’ vehicle was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense and thus violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. This decision is pivotal as it underscores the constitutional limits on state and local governments’ power to impose fines and forfeitures.
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.In Michigan, police can take your dashcam footage in specific situations, primarily when they believe it could serve as evidence in a criminal investigation. Michigan law permits officers to seize...
Someone asked us... Can the police take my drone?As we have seen ... They can charge, arrest you and take your stuff for whatever they want. You'll have to fight it out in court to get it back.In Michigan, the police can confiscate your drone under certain...
police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence”A mother has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that, while her son was experiencing a seizure in his Tennessee apartment, police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence” on the 23-year-old instead...
Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...
This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision...
Does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment The Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that restrict individuals experiencing homelessness from utilizing blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes...
Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada. This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate. If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer…we wish you luck. Assume you do not have the rights a Canadian citizen would have and only be given basic human rights.
In Canada, vehicle forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to permanently take possession of a vehicle. Let’s explore the reasons behind vehicle forfeiture and the steps involved.
Reasons for Vehicle Seizure:
Commission of a Crime:
Law enforcement agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), can seize a vehicle temporarily if it is being used in the commission of a crime or if it serves as evidence of a crime.
Additionally, vehicles may be seized if they are abandoned or driven by someone prohibited from driving.
Violation of Laws or Regulations:
Vehicles can be seized if their owners violate certain laws or regulations. Examples include driving without valid insurance or registration or possessing a learner’s permit without an appropriate accompanying driver.
Vehicle Forfeiture:
Permanent Taking:
Vehicle forfeiture occurs after a legal process, usually when the vehicle was used in a crime or represents proceeds of crime (e.g., drug trafficking, money laundering).
Unlike seizure, forfeiture results in the permanent loss of the vehicle to the government.
Notification and Claim Process:
When a vehicle is seized, the owner is notified of the seizure and provided with information about the reason.
If the vehicle is not needed as evidence, the owner can reclaim it by following these steps:
Contact the agency that seized the vehicle for specific requirements.
Prove ownership with documentation (e.g., vehicle registration, bill of sale).
Pay any fines or fees associated with the seizure.
Retrieve the vehicle.
APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong. Call Komorn Law (248) 357-2550
Civil Forfeiture Laws:
Canada’s civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize property without compensation when it is suspected of being used to commit an illegal act or acquired through illegal means.
Conclusion:
Understanding the difference between vehicle seizure and forfeiture is crucial. If your vehicle is subject to forfeiture, seek legal representation to navigate the process and protect your rights.
For more detailed information, you can refer to the full article.
Please note that this summary provides an overview, and it is recommend you consult legal professionals for personalized advice.
Does Canada follow the US Constitution?
The U.S. Constitution spells out the specific powers of Congress, leaving everything else to the states. The Canadian Constitution does the opposite.
Provinces are limited to the powers explicitly given them by the Canadian Constitution and everything else is under the purview of the federal Parliament.
Canadian Bill of Rights
The Canadian Encyclopedia The Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of individuals to life, liberty, personal security, and enjoyment of property. (It does not recognize “possession” of property, …
Property that can be forfeited: Under Michigan law, the following property can be forfeited:
Cash
Vehicles
Real estate
Boats
Aircraft
Other personal property
Crimes that can lead to forfeiture: Property can be forfeited if it is used or derived from a crime, or if it is intended to be used or derived from a crime. Some of the crimes that can lead to forfeiture include:
Drug trafficking
Money laundering
Racketeering
Human trafficking
Procedural requirements: In order to forfeit property, the government must follow certain procedural requirements. These requirements include:
Giving notice to the property owner
Holding a hearing
Proving that the property was used or derived from a crime
Rights of the property owner: The property owner has certain rights in a forfeiture proceeding. These rights include:
The right to be notified of the forfeiture proceeding
The right to a hearing
The right to present evidence
The right to challenge the government’s evidence
Did your property get stolen by “forfeiture” – Act on it now. We can fight to get it back. We have done it many times. Call Us Komorn Law 248-357-2550
In recent years, there has been some controversy surrounding civil asset forfeiture laws in Michigan. Some people argue that these laws are unfair because they allow the government to seize property without a criminal conviction. Others argue that these laws are necessary to combat crime.
In 2019, Michigan passed a law that prohibits law enforcement from forfeiting seized assets (under $50,000 in value) from crimes involving controlled substances without a conviction or plea agreement, or unless the property owner relinquishes the property.
This law was intended to address some of the concerns about civil asset forfeiture in Michigan.
If you have had property seized by the government in Michigan, you should speak to an attorney to discuss your rights.
DISCLAIMER This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.
Eric Smith is the an American attorney and the former Prosecuting Attorney of Macomb County, Michigan. He resigned in 2020 after his arrest of embezzlement and corruption charges.
Eric Smith turns down request to run for Attorney General
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith has declined a request by Democratic Party and union leaders to run for state Attorney General.
Smith, 51, the prosecutor since 2005, said he was asked to run last fall but informed state party officials last week that the time is not right for him to run. He enjoys his current job and doesn’t wont to inject disruptions of a statewide campaign and possible move to Lansing into the lives of his wife and three children.
‘I was approached by Democratic leaders and elected officials and a broad range of Democratic Party allies,’ Smith said. ‘I appreciated their interested and the discussions about this important law-enforcement position in our state. But … I decided this was not the right time for my office and my family.’
He said his office is running at peak efficiency and he isn’t ready to relinquish the reins.
He is very involved with his two daughters, Ella and Violet, 12 and 9, respectively, and son, Robert, 7, and their sports and other activities.
‘I’m coaching four teams right now,’ Smith said.
He said one of his assistants, Derek Miller, a former Democratic state representative and county treasurer, counseled and assisted him in the discussions with union, party and elected officials.
The post will be open with current Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette running for governor to succeed Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican.
‘I think Macomb County would be represented well in Lansing for a change,’ he said.
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith has been charged with embezzling $600,000 in county forfeiture funds.
Attorney General Dana Nessel charged Smith and three others in his office. Nessel called it “an elaborate scheme of profiteering motivated by what appears to be unfettered self-interest.”
Smith was charged Tuesday with 10 counts, including forgery, embezzlement, tampering with evidence and criminal enterprise, according to court records. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conducting a criminal enterprise, which would be one of the longest sentences ever given to a Detroit-area public official.
Also charged were Benjamin Liston, Smith’s former chief assistant, who faces four counts, including conducting a criminal enterprise and embezzlement; and Smith’s chief of operations, Derek Miller, charged with conspiracy. Miller is a former member of the Michigan House of Representatives.
…Nessel’s investigation allegedly found Smith and the others charged used the forfeiture money for security for Smith’s home; garden benches, flowers and make-up for staffers; retirement relocation expenses for Liston, checks to various Catholic churches in the “tens of thousands of dollars,” iPads for kids who attended school with Smith’s children, campaign expenditures; and “country club catering for parties.”
