Trump sides with the sheriffs on their racket- True regardless of source.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The technique has been called (by this columnist) “immunity through profusion.” By keeping the molten lava of falsehoods flowing, the volcano that is Donald Trump can inundate the public and overwhelm his auditors’ capacity to produce a comparable flow of corrections. This technique was on display the other day when the president met with some sheriffs.

He treated them to a whopper that is one of his hardy perennials, market-tested during the campaign: He said the U.S. murder rate is “the highest it’s been in 47 years..” (Not even close: The rate — killings per 100,000 residents — is far below the rates in the 1970s and 1980s.) This Trump Truth (the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s axiom: Anything said three times in Washington becomes a fact) distracted attention from his assertion to the sheriffs that there is “no reason” to reform law enforcement’s civil forfeiture practices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-sides-with-the-sheriffs-on-their-racket/2017/02/08/964e41c0-ee4c-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2349e8a76760

[procon]

1. How is civil forfeiture Constitutionally legal?

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... OK, I understand the police want to seize items as evidence, but why are they entitled to keep property and enrich themselves?

Especially a car than is usually co owned by married people, even if one is convicted of a crime, so how can they take the property of the innocent spouse without compensation for the loss? And what if the seized property is still legally owned by a bank and there is an outstanding loan, who pays that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. When I lived in Florida it was a real problem on I-95.