*Can they take your house?? If Caught??
- Thread starter pandabear
- Start date
jollygreengiant8
Well-Known Member
where i live in the US they can seize your car or house or whatever they find drugs in...
then they drive YOUR car to the elementary school with D.A.R.E. stamped on the side and tell all of the little kids how they got that car from a drug dealer.
I have no idea about other places but i'm pretty sure that they can seize your shit leaving you pennyless.
then they drive YOUR car to the elementary school with D.A.R.E. stamped on the side and tell all of the little kids how they got that car from a drug dealer.
I have no idea about other places but i'm pretty sure that they can seize your shit leaving you pennyless.
pandabear
Well-Known Member
AlphaNoN
Well-Known Member
It's unlikely they would "seize" your home for growing pot, they might take items and cash that are the result of drug sales. But foreclosure is after an arrest is a real possibility. Who's going to pay your mortgage, taxes, etc. for the 3-5 years that all the adults that resided in your home, are in prison?
pandabear
Well-Known Member
thank you supreme court:
THE SUPREME COURT; Excerpts From Ruling On Seizure of Property
Published: June 29, 1993
Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision today finding that the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines requires that there be a relationship between the seriousness of an offense and the property that is taken. The decision, in Austin v. United States, was unanimous. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy wrote concurrences. BY JUSTICE BLACKMUN, For the Court
In this case, we are asked to decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures of property under 21 U.S.C. Sections Sections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7). We hold that it does and therefore remand the case for consideration of the question whether the forfeiture at issue here was excessive. . . .
The purpose of the Eighth Amendment . . . was to limit the Government's power to punish. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is self-evidently concerned with punishment. The Excessive Fines Clause limits the Government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, "as punishment for some offense. . . ."
Thus, the question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under Sections Sections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.
In considering this question, we are mindful of the fact that sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose. We need not exclude the possibility that a forfeiture serves remedial purposes to conclude that it is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. We, however, must determine that it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. . . .
8th Amendment
THE SUPREME COURT; Excerpts From Ruling On Seizure of Property
Published: June 29, 1993
Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision today finding that the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines requires that there be a relationship between the seriousness of an offense and the property that is taken. The decision, in Austin v. United States, was unanimous. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy wrote concurrences. BY JUSTICE BLACKMUN, For the Court
In this case, we are asked to decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures of property under 21 U.S.C. Sections Sections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7). We hold that it does and therefore remand the case for consideration of the question whether the forfeiture at issue here was excessive. . . .
The purpose of the Eighth Amendment . . . was to limit the Government's power to punish. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is self-evidently concerned with punishment. The Excessive Fines Clause limits the Government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, "as punishment for some offense. . . ."
Thus, the question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under Sections Sections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.
In considering this question, we are mindful of the fact that sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose. We need not exclude the possibility that a forfeiture serves remedial purposes to conclude that it is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. We, however, must determine that it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. . . .
8th Amendment
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
in England if u have paid ur mortgage off and it is ur property they arnt allowed to do shit to it. they can search it. they cant take it off u and resell it or w/e. they cannot take ur house which u have paid for.
thats in England anyway, not sure about anywhere else.
infact, even if u havnt paid of ur mortgage they cant do anything to it then except search it.
ur business with the house is between u and the mortgage company. i dont see how police can take it off u.
AlphaNoN
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't thank the supreme court just yet.. They can still take anything they please, and you have to fight to get it back whether you're guilty or not.
Police steal $400,000 from OH couple, no charges filed. :
American Civil Liberties Union : Drug Policy and Civil Asset Forfeiture
Police steal $400,000 from OH couple, no charges filed. :
American Civil Liberties Union : Drug Policy and Civil Asset Forfeiture
Twistyman
Well-Known Member
Some states have seizure of property from profit of criminal enterprise...If convicted for drugs the proof that the house WAS bought from profit is a moot point..if they can link 1 single sale of drug, theft....etc That might be all they need..Thats how they wiped out the Hells Angeles here..Once "any" crime takes place that might do it......IMO
goatamineHcL
Well-Known Member
yes they can
korvette1977
Well-Known Member
If you are caught running a Criminal enterprise and they can show you bought the property with the money from that said criminal enterprise . yes they can take it .. If you have a small grow (a few plants) and you are NOT DEALING then you'll be safe from them taking the house..
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
That is their favorite thing to do man. They WANT to ruin peoples lives because you pose a threat to their false war. If more people just got a slap and a fine then there would be more people like Marc Emery speaking out a and fighting pot laws. It's a culture of fear and propaganda and it has worked for a long time. The whole war is unconstitutional but most people don't even know it due to propaganda and the people that do know it are too afraid to fight it. The war on drugs will be exposed and decriminalization of pot is the first step after that the DEA will be under much more public pressure.
I stand corrected then. In my state, 5 plants or less is a misdemeanor.
panhead
Well-Known Member
Im in Michigan & i can say for a fact that the police will seize everything in sight,then the prosecuting attorney will come after whats left.
Not only did they take my house which was 100% paid off free & clear,they seized all my bank accounts,2 cars,a truck,2 motorcycles & a motor home,my safe & all its contents which were cash,stamp collection,my ex wifes jewerly,guns,a few autographs that can never be replaced,a very expensive hifi system in the living room,they took it all.
When i got out i was allready divorced,she left me while i was in the joint,i had a bag of bullshit clothes she saved for me,was on foot,broke as a joke & still owed over $30,000 in fines & fees to the state.
I fought hard for my possesions & cash,had proof up the ass where it all came from,ive always had a good job since ive been an adult plus i had a decent inheritance on paper as proof,no matter,we got it & its being sold at auction.
And yes i had a good lawyer,a very expensive lawyer with a great acquittal record following him.
Shit might be different in other states but in Michigan they are comming for it all,one plant or 30lbs all in 8th baggies,it dont matter,they are taking it all.
Not only did they take my house which was 100% paid off free & clear,they seized all my bank accounts,2 cars,a truck,2 motorcycles & a motor home,my safe & all its contents which were cash,stamp collection,my ex wifes jewerly,guns,a few autographs that can never be replaced,a very expensive hifi system in the living room,they took it all.
When i got out i was allready divorced,she left me while i was in the joint,i had a bag of bullshit clothes she saved for me,was on foot,broke as a joke & still owed over $30,000 in fines & fees to the state.
I fought hard for my possesions & cash,had proof up the ass where it all came from,ive always had a good job since ive been an adult plus i had a decent inheritance on paper as proof,no matter,we got it & its being sold at auction.
And yes i had a good lawyer,a very expensive lawyer with a great acquittal record following him.
Shit might be different in other states but in Michigan they are comming for it all,one plant or 30lbs all in 8th baggies,it dont matter,they are taking it all.
panhead
Well-Known Member
What you say is true & the conditions of entering into a "criminal enterprise" along with distribution must be met but both those terms are so loose that they can be easily met under any circumstance.
If your wife has scales in the kitchen for cooking its distribution,same goes for zip lock baggies in the cuppord for the kids lunches,have your bud in more than one bag its distribution.
Meeting the conditions of an ongoing criminal enterprise is just as easy,all you need to do is to have one grow going while there are packaged buds in the home,conditions met & it all goes by by.
As for proving that the assets were acquired by an ongoing criminal enterprise its exactly oposite,they take everything right from the start,even before your convicted,then they try & use the assets against you in a leverage play by offering a lessor sentance,if yu dont willingly sign away the rights to those assets the prosecuting attorney fights hard to keep the items seized,the burden of proof ends up being placed on the defendant, which is exactly opposite from the laws,seizure laws are very loose,an accusation from the prosecuting attorney will allways be all the proof the judge needs to sign off,even if you have recipts & can demonstrate where the funds came from.
They've mastered the technique of fleecing us under the guise of helping people.
blinkykush
Well-Known Member
I would think that as long as there is not a connection made between the purchase of your house and drug profits you wouldnt have anything to fear there. In your case, you arent going to sell the shit so if by any random freak reason you got nabbed, you would most likely spend a night in jail post and go to court. Then at the mercy of a judge that will def fine the shit out of you, and might give you some time and probation, hell maybe even community service BUT KNOW WAY ARE YOU GONNA GET YOUR HOUSE TAKEN COME ON
blinkykush
Well-Known Member
Now if you fuck around and dont pay uncle sam...they will take your house,socks,underwear everything
Rsixxer
Well-Known Member
I did some research before I started to grow, and found some interesting things. They can seize said property if you own it or have a mortgage on the home. Here's the best part though, if the home is in somebody else's name (renting), then the homeowners are protected from the seizure. So in my case, my mother-in-law owns the home I rent from her. She has no idea about the grow, and if I am ever caught she can play dumb because she was in the dark.
Moral: Don't get caught lol.
Moral: Don't get caught lol.