Index Index
Seizure, Confiscation, Forfeiture
South Dakota https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-south-dakota/ This seems like a social justice type of site Blog South Dakota Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture, Withdraw From Federal Program By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Feb 25, 2020|Categories: Asset Forfeiture, State Bills| PIERRE, S.D. (Feb. 25, 2020) – Today, a South Dakota Senate committee passed a bill that would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases and withdraw the state from a federal program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government. https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture- withdraw-from-federal-program/ New Mexico Forbes 2020/12 When New Mexico Abolished Civil Forfeiture 5 Years Ago, Cops Predicted Crime Would Soar. It Didn’t One of the government’s most egregious powers is civil forfeiture, which lets police confiscate—and even keep—private property without ever charging the owner with a crime. But in 2015, New Mexico completely (and unanimously) abolished the practice and replaced it with criminal forfeiture, which requires a criminal conviction to forfeit property. https //www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/12/17/when-new-mexico-abolished-civil-forfeiture-5-years-ago-cops- predicted-crime-would-soar-it-didnt/?sh=404b9a8c2729 IN THIS SECTION Brief Intro/Start Here Arizona Colorado New Mexico Is RFID usage a form of search and seizure? Police Radar spying inside the home* IS RFID a form of search and seizure? RFID Radio frequency identity (RFID) chips are tiny computer chips connected to miniature antennas that can be placed on or in physical objects. They are used in a wide variety of applications where “contactless” authentication is desired, including toll booths, transit passes, passports, and contactless entry keys. There are two primary areas where RFIDs raise privacy issues: their use in retail and elsewhere in the commercial sector, and their direct adoption by government. In both cases, RFID tags make it possible for governments, stores, and hackers to identify people at a distance and without their knowledge. Anywhere an RFID reader is installed, a person can be identified—and the more readers that are [from ACLU website on RFID] Instructables dot com https //www instructables com/How-to-blockkill-RFID-chips/ Excerpt: -The easiest way to kill an RFID, and be sure that it is dead, is to throw it in the microwave for 5 seconds. Doing this will literally melt the chip and antenna making it impossible for the chip to ever be read again. Unfortunately this method has a certain fire risk associated with it. Killing an RFID chip this way will also leave visible evidence that it has been tampered with, making it an unsuitable method for killing the RFID tag in passports. Doing this to a credit card will probably also screw with the magnetic strip on the back making it un- swipeable. -The second, slightly more convert and less damaging, way to kill an RFID tag is by piercing the chip with a knife or other sharp object. This can only be done if you know exactly where the chip is located within the tag. This method also leaves visible evidence of intentional damage done to the chip, so it is unsuitable for passports. -The third method is cutting the antenna very close to the chip. By doing this the chip will have no way of receiving electricity, or transmitting its signal back to the reader. This technique also leaves minimal signs of damage, so it would probably not be a good idea to use this on a passport. https //www instructables com/How-to-blockkill-RFID-chips/ *USA Today 2015/01/19 Police radar see through walls https //www usatoday com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/ Excerpt: At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance. Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant. The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving. https //www usatoday com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/ Brief Introduction to Search and Seizure “….The search was conducted without warrant, consent, or probable cause, and revealed no contraband or evidence of illegal activity in the vehicle….” from ACLU/Sunland Park, New Mexico below Start Here Police Departments Keeping the Cash Across the USA CNN 2015/01/21 Police seizing assets, keeping the cash-CNN's Gary Tuchman reports on police departments across the U.S. profiting from the cash police officers seize during traffic stops. https [colon] //www [dot] youtube [dot] com/watch?v=mevVt5sHDNA Drug Sniffing Dogs Constitutes a Sesarch Colorado Sun 2019/05/21 Did the Colorado Supreme Court just throw the state’s marijuana-legalization regime into question? The chief justice seems to think so. A case about drug-sniffing dogs could turn into a watershed moment in Colorado marijuana law. Or not. Legal experts are split.By John Ingold https //coloradosun com/2019/05/21/colorado-marijuana-dogs-supreme-court/ Excerpt: The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a sniff of a car by police dogs trained to smell for marijuana in addition to other drugs constitutes a search — which is a big deal that doesn’t really sink in at first. To search someone’s car, police need evidence of a crime. When the case was argued before the court late last year, lots of the talk focused on whether an alert from a pot-trained dog was enough to give police reason to dig through someone’s car looking for drugs. After all, if possession of small amounts of marijuana is now legal, how does the officer know that the dog is barking because it smells a crime? But the majority in this case — named People v. McKnight, after a guy whose car was searched in Craig because of the bark of a police dog that was a holdover from pre-legalization days — went further. The justices said simply bringing out a pot-trained dog to sniff around now constitutes a search, in and of itself. As in, it’s something that police have to have evidence in order to do. “The dog’s sniff arguably intrudes on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in lawful activity,” Justice William Hood wrote in the majority’s ruling. “If so, that intrusion must be justified by some degree of particularized suspicion of criminal activity.” https //coloradosun com/2019/05/21/colorado-marijuana-dogs-supreme-court/ ARIZONA Wikipedia Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), https //en wikipedia org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987 https //en wikipedia org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks Arizona v. Johnson https //www law.cornell edu/supct/cert/07-1122 Excerpt: ssues In the course of a minor traffic stop, is the police officer’s reasonable belief that the vehicle’s passenger may be armed and dangerous a sufficient reason to conduct a search of the passenger for a concealed weapon, even where there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? Oral argument: December 9, 2008 Lemon Johnson was a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle stopped for a mandatory insurance suspension. A police officer initiated a conversation with Johnson that was unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop. After asking him to exit the car, the officer conducted a pat-down search of Johnson because she was concerned for her safety upon noticing signs that Johnson may have been affiliated with a gang. During the pat-down search, the officer found a gun, which was used as evidence to convict Johnson at trial. Johnson argues that this evidence should have been suppressed because the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights: the officer had no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring, and therefore the pat-down search did not meet the standard articulated by Terry v. Ohio. In this case, the State of Arizona argues that police officers should have the right to conduct a pat-down search if there is a reasonable basis to believe the individual is armed and dangerous. COLORADO Washington Post: (also found in Police Issues/Colorado) 2019/10/30 Police blew up an innocent man’s house to search an armed shoplifter, too bad [regarding destruction of home] court rules. By Meagan Flynn. Note from PF: Please note this was apparently a Walmart shoplifter? Is Walmart getting higher than normal police activity (support and protection) against shoplifters similar to protections against a government entity? https //www washingtonpost com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-search-an-armed- shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/ NEW MEXICO Attorney Generals Office dot gov https //www nmag gov/nm-oag-search-seizure-manual pdf DPS New Mexico http //nmlea dps state nm us/legal/documents/Search_and_Seizure_without_a_Warrant pdf Think Progress dot org https //thinkprogress org/new-mexico-is-the-second-state-to-ban-police-from-seizing-innocent-peoples- property-d9b947c1399#.ku6u8e181 Wildcat Arlzona dot edu 2015/04 http //www wildcat arizona edu/article/2015/04/no-excuses-for-unwarranted-search-seizure-drug-dogs ACLU 2019/03/08 Excerpt: SUNLAND PARK, NM - Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in Third Judicial District Court against the City of Sunland Park, New Mexico, alleging that a Sunland Park police officer unlawfully detained and wrongfully arrested Oscar Gutiérrez Sánchez and his five year old son, both residents of Las Cruces, and subjected them to an illegal search using a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) drug detection dog. The search was conducted without warrant, consent, or probable cause, and revealed no contraband or evidence of illegal activity in the vehicle. “The only explanation for this unlawful search and arrest is that the officer in question found our client suspicious merely because he was an immigrant and a person of color driving in the vicinity of the border,” said ACLU of New Mexico Legal Director Leon Howard. “Our client was simply trying to drive home with his young son, but ended up terrorized and detained on the side of the highway at night as border patrol drug dogs searched his vehicle.” https //www aclu-nm org/en/press-releases/aclu-new-mexico-sues-sunland-park-police-illegal-and- discriminatory-search State v. Garcia 2009 https //law justia com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/2009/213a html State v. Gutierrez 1993 https //law justia com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1993/19893-0 html Updates: 2021/05/27 earlier page Search and Seizures fused with this one; 2021/05/26--PAGE STARTED--Seizures; From previous page Search and Seizures--Updates: 2021/02/07 finishing earlier links de-activation process; 2020/09/03 police radar inside home USA Today-2015 article added Updates: 2020/03/01 Article added to Start Here-CNN-2015/01/21; 2020/01/04 Col Sun-2019/05/21 added; 2020/01/01 Arizona/Arizona v. Gant (2009) added; 2019/12/31 added for New Mexico: ACLU/Sunland Park case-2019; State v. Garcia-2009; State v. Gutierrez-1993; AGO-search-seizure manual; DPS-Search Seizure w/o warrant;