From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:14:28 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
:weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
:: 	In this country, people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
:: You cannot punish someone because they might commit a crime. 
:You must be living in a different United States than I am.  It is 
:currently legal for law enforcement officials to arrest you  and
:confiscate your property on mere suspicion of committing a crime.
:When they finally do release you  (for one reason or another), 
:they do NOT have to (and they usually don't) return your property
:or compensate you for wrongfully imprisoning you.
:I wish that this country still worked on the principle of "innocent
:until proven guilty."  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be
:reality any more.

OK, minutes after posting this, I was asked in email to provide
an example of all this.  I suspect that someone else is going to
post a similar request.  So....  here's the reply I sent to that
person:

---

Message-Id: <9210131500.AA00228@ eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu >
Subject: Re: Confiscate?
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)

|I guess most of us do live in a different country.  But just
|to make sure, could you give me an example of where _confiscation_
|can occur on "mere suspicion"?

Current anti-drug laws in the US are such that if you are _suspected_
of drug-trafficking or drug-dealing, or if you happen to have an
innocent association with drug-related crimes (say, a bunch of drug
dealers set up shop in your vacation home without your knowing), law
enforcement officials may confiscate property they believe may have
been associated with the suspected crime.  

This in and of itself is not necessarily wrong.

However, all too frequently formal charges are not filed or if they are,
the suspect is found not guilty.  If the "innocent until proven guilty"
principle held, the law enforecement officials should return the confiscated
property, or reimburse the owner for his/her loss.  Unfortunately,
this does not always happen.  In all too many cases, the "suspect"
is not brought up on charges, or the "suspect" is found not guilty, but
NEVER gets his/her confiscated property returned!

This is how my grandparents lost the family farm.  They lived in Indianapolis.
The family farm was about an hours drive away, and was being leased out
to a neighbor.  A couple of young punks set up a "warehouse/base of 
operations" for their local small-time drug-dealing operation, without
the person leasing the land or my grandparents' knowing.

Local officials discovered the operation and "confiscated" (took ownership)
of those 80 acres.  The punks were found innocent on a technicality,
and the land was sold at auction later that year.  My grandparents were
never compensated for their loss of income and their loss of property,
and they didn't have the funds to fight it in court.

Similar things occur in the realm of "computer-crime."  Recently one
BBS was raided for permitting minors access to pornographic graphics.
The local police confiscated quite a bit of computer equipment.  It
was later determined that the owner/operator of the BBS wasn't aware
that minors were hacking access without the owner's knowledge, and 
charges were dropped.  He never got his equipment back, though.

Yes, I can understand law enforcement folks taking "protective
custody" of some property to prevent the loss of some evidence.
I cannot understand why, if "innocent until proven guilty"
still held, the property wouldn't be returned if charges weren't
filed, or if the suspect(s) were found innocent.

The rhetoric in this country all too frequently does not match up
with reality.

-- 
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41533 alt.rush-limbaugh:6939