Key Court Rulings Shaping California Forfeiture Law
Understanding the history of California forfeiture law is crucial for anyone facing potential asset seizure. Rucci Law’s analysis highlights key rulings concerning the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and the burden of proof required to establish probable cause for forfeiture. This content outlines the significant impact of United States v. Miller (1992), which established that forfeiture must be based on a criminal conviction, and United States v. Jones (2003), where the court addressed the issue of alleged proceeds from drug trafficking. We also cover In re Ramirez (2008) – a case relating to the standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings, and United States v. Sanchez (2015) – a recent decision regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during searches related to forfeiture.
You might also like:
Reasonable limits on asset forfeiture past-due | The FBI Is Trying to Keep More Cash Seized from a Beverly Hills Vault | Feds seized nearly $700 million from FTX founder Bankman-Fried | Supreme Court Rules that Excessive Fines Clause Applies to States and Constrains Civil Asset Forfeiture | Sanctions threaten to cripple Russia’s multibillion-dollar crypto industry | Zoning & Permitting for Data Centers: Navigating Local Regulations | Holder announces new limits on civil asset forfeitures | Indiana Senate Passes Bill To Let Government Steal Stuff From People Suspected of ‘Unlawful Assembly’ | Colocation vs. Cloud: Hybrid Approaches Gain Ground | Texas Case May Spur Drug Money Rule Change | Breach & Cyber Insurance for Data Centers: Minimizing Liability | Legislation Introduced to Curb Federal Forfeiture | Preparing for Quantum Networking in Data Centers | Kansas Asset Forfeiture Investigation Part 1 | Massachusetts Worst in Nation for Civil Forfeiture Laws | Data Center Vendor Vetting: Avoiding Liability Through Due Diligence | Streamlining the Permitting Process for Data Center Development | Sen. Lee Questions ATF Nominee on Civil Asset Forfeiture | This Week’s Civil Forfeiture Outrage (Tenth in a Series: Baltimore Edition) | Negotiating Data Center Leases: Key Terms and Considerations | JUSTICE MANUAL 9-113.000 – Forfeiture Settlements | Civil Asset Forfeiture Explained In Two Minutes | Hybrid IT Strategies: Legal and Security Considerations for On-Prem, Colo, and Cloud Mix | The U.S. government has a massive, secret stockpile of bitcoin — Here’s what happens to it
Related:
No Arrest — But Cops Took And Kept His $2,035 Anyway | Texas Nurse Sues Feds Over Abusive Civil Forfeiture Practices | FBI misled judge who signed warrant for Beverly Hills seizure of $86 million in cash | New report: In tough times, police start seizing a lot more stuff from people | Professional Innocent Owner Defense Attorney Legal Services | Inside Civil Asset Forfeiture | Retiree’s Home Taken for $8.41 Tax Bill Draws Michigan Supreme Court Ire | Arizona Civil Forfeiture Reform Bill is Signed into Law | No Arrest — But Cops Took And Kept His $2,035 Anyway | How Policing for Profit Threatens Your Rights (TEDx) | Texas Nurse Sues Feds Over Abusive Civil Forfeiture Practices | Investigating CPD’s Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture | Sanctioned oligarch accuses U.S. of stealing his assets, vows to fight in Russian court | FBI Seizures and Forfeitures | Does Civil Asset Forfeiture Violate Fourth Amendment Rights? | Civil Asset Forfeiture Explained In Two Minutes | California Losing Millions in Civil Asset Forfeiture Funds as Law Aims to Curb Police Abuse | Policing for Profit: Justice Reformers Chip Away at Civil Asset Forfeiture | Civil Asset Forfeiture: Undue Process | Civil Asset Forfeiture “Has Created Serious Problems” | AOC Discovers the Horrors of Civil Asset Forfeiture, Rails Against the Practice in Congressional Hearing | IRS to return seized cash to small-business owner | Civil Asset Forfeiture – Shooting Straight | Report: Government Seizes Billions in Private Property, but Citizens Have Little Recourse
