+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Hawaii criminal asset forfeiture (/showthread.php?tid=23586)
Hawaii criminal asset forfeiture - knieft - 03-01-2025
Auction is live now for assets of folks arrested (yet sometimes not convicted) of crimes…
https://ag.hawaii.gov/afp/home/auction-items/
When we moved here in the late nineties I was informed to watch out for any signs of mj cultivation on our our 6 acre Opihikao property since illegal growers were at the risk of having their property confiscated if caught growing on it and had switched to growing on other properties. And a day later I saw my first helicopter hovering over the property across the street from us (less than 30 meters from the road) lowering the spray canister for a while and exiting to do the same a kilometer or so up by Brysons makai pit on 130 near Leilani.
The guy I had briefly hired to work with me on our new property, threw down his t-post rammer and swore up a storm. Turns out he was sure that one of _his_ grows was being sprayed. I couldn’t see how he could be so sure from so far away, but turned out he was right.
Anyway, I went across the street and took a look and sure enough, there were 20 some plants with red dye all over them. I then had near weekly helicopter visits where they would come and check out my pimply butt while I installed pigtails on the propane or pounded t-posts on the mostly freshly dozed six acres…which of course exposed clearly that there was nothing but some ohia and Mac trees left growing, not pot plants. The hovers eventually abated, but I found out that the previous owner of our property was a grower. “The rippers got most of his stuff,” joked the worker. So I guess the folks in copters were making sure I didn’t have the same evil intentions. Who knows?
Probably that’s a too-long winded way of saying asset forfeiture has been going on for a long time hereabouts.
I was always in awe of this actually happening. Taking property of folks arrested before conviction!?! And truth told, it seemed to be a pretty sketchy idea even after conviction (especially for growing weed). Regardless of its apparent unconstitutionality, I guess the federal courts supported it somehow.
Found out about this in national media, but haven’t seen anything in the local press.
https://reason.com/2025/02/18/hawaii-can-auction-off-your-car-without-ever-convicting-you/
I hope the legislation described below is approved.
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2025/01/hawaii-bills-would-require-a-criminal-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture-and-restrict-federal-loophole/
I am curious what the defense of asset forfeiture is, especially before conviction. (It was the rare topic around a recent poker table that everyone agreed on, that is was absurd. Probably a rare thing in large part because I was at the poker table and am an outlier in most opinion realms
).Cheers,
Kirt
RE: Hawaii criminal asset forfeiture - leilanidude - 03-02-2025
That probably explains why folks had been growing in the Malama-Ki Forest Preserve between Leilani and the ocean. Off of the Kalapana-Kapoho Road, not far from McKenzie, is a barely passable Jeep trail that runs up into the preserve. Took my Jeep up it once, about 3/4 of a mile. It is a really rough trail. My passengers and I were getting really weird vibes and we decided it best to turn around and leave. There was occasional evidence of people having cut narrow trails off of the main trail. Wasn't from pigs. Obvious that machete' had been used. We didn't want to come across some angry grower.
Kirt - I just looked at some of the vehicles in that auction. OMG. They left the license plates on them. You would think they would have removed/destroyed them. I certainly wouldn't want to drive around with those same plates on the car. Also noticed some very old egistrations, many of them going back to 2018?
RE: Hawaii criminal asset forfeiture - terracore - 03-03-2025
(03-01-2025, 02:46 AM)knieft Wrote: I am curious what the defense of asset forfeiture is, especially before conviction. (It was the rare topic around a recent poker table that everyone agreed on, that is was absurd. Probably a rare thing in large part because I was at the poker table and am an outlier in most opinion realms
Cheers,
Kirt
Unfortunately, SCOTUS has determined that civil asset forfeiture is disturbingly legal, based on this 1996 ruling, which became case law in determining other cases.
"Bennis v. Michigan (1996).
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of civil asset forfeiture, even when the property owner was not directly involved in criminal activity. The Court ruled 5-4 that a woman’s car, which was being used by her husband for an illegal act (soliciting prostitution), could be forfeited even though she had no knowledge of the illegal activity.
This decision essentially reinforced the legality of civil asset forfeiture, allowing law enforcement to seize property tied to criminal conduct, even if the owner was innocent of wrongdoing. The ruling was controversial because it upheld asset forfeiture laws that can lead to the loss of property without a criminal conviction or due process for the property owner."
Since then, SCOTUS has also ruled on some cases that seemed to somewhat limit asset forfeiture. As I understood it (I have not studied this topic in some time) the 1996 case seemed to settle the discussion kind of like a 1973 ruling on another controversial topic that was considered the law of the land until another SCOTUS overturned it in 2022. Maybe, the asset forfeiture ruling will be revisited with an uncertain outcome. (I'm specifically not trying to draw any similarity between the cases other than that they were significant landmark rulings of our time, so if anybody has read anything else into this, take some deep breaths and go outside and enjoy nature for awhile).
RE: Hawaii criminal asset forfeiture - HiloJulie - 03-03-2025
The SCOTUS did revisit the asset forfeiture issue about a year ago, but didn't really move the needle much in changing the law, but this article's (linked below) title pretty much sums the ruling up, along with the whole story about the cases and decision. Or lack of decision.
Consolidated cases Culley v. Marshall and Sutton v. Town of Leesburg, Alabama
Civil Forfeiture Decision ‘May Present Hope As Well As Disappointment’ • News & Events • Penn Carey Law
But with the make-up of the political majority and the SCOTUS today, it's entirely possible that we will see a whole bunch of what we enjoy as being legal will soon be illegal and what's illegal today will soon be legal. And if you don't agree with me on that "take some deep breaths and go outside and enjoy nature for a while."