User Controls
South Dakota judge struck down legal weed
-
2021-02-13 at 10:27 PM UTChahahahahahahaha
fucking republicans
the people already voted for it hahahahaha -
2021-02-13 at 10:34 PM UTCrape him then?
-
2021-02-13 at 11:45 PM UTCSouth Dakota police make billions for themselves in forfeitures for a joint of weed. They're not going to let all that free cash go so easily. South Dakota does not require a criminal conviction to forfeit property. This means that the state has a low hurdle in connecting the property to the alleged crime and an owner must prove his or her innocence by showing that the property was not connected to the alleged crime.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-02-14 at 12:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ South Dakota police make billions for themselves in forfeitures for a joint of weed. They're not going to let all that free cash go so easily. South Dakota does not require a criminal conviction to forfeit property. This means that the state has a low hurdle in connecting the property to the alleged crime and an owner must prove his or her innocence by showing that the property was not connected to the alleged crime.
The government would make more in taxes. Nobody is trafficking a lot of weed in South Dakota anyway lmao.
Also I don't think like 95% of cops give a fuck about seizing anything since they don't actually have enough power to keep the things they take. It's not like they walk around all greedy waiting for opportunity. They get paid alright. Cops in the US are far more prone to corruption on 'moral grounds'. -
2021-02-14 at 1:54 AM UTCIf you're driving along, and they find a joint in your car, they will seize your car, and everything in it. You don't even have to be convicted of any crime. They like that. They like it a lot.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-02-14 at 1:56 AM UTC
-
2021-02-14 at 1:58 AM UTC
-
2021-02-14 at 1:59 AM UTC
-
2021-02-14 at 2:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member Doesn't happen.
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/Issue%20Memo/124655.pdf
For civil forfeiture, an owner does not need to be charged with a crime to have assets seized. Law enforcement
need only prove they had a reasonable basis for believing a crime was committed. This type of forfeiture is
currently used for drug asset forfeitures. Civil forfeiture laws came to fruition in South Dakota in 1970 with the
creation of civil forfeiture in SDCL 34-20B-70 for drug-related crimes. The original statute went through a variety
of changes in the 1970s and 1980s with the most recent change coming in 2016. Bills attempting to expand the
practice of civil forfeiture to vehicles used in felony-offense DUIs have been proposed several times throughout
the last decade, but failed to become law.
There are many aspects to asset forfeiture in South Dakota. A person may forfeit products, materials, containers,
or equipment used in manufacturing, storing, or distributing controlled substances or marijuana. A person may
also forfeit any vehicles or conveyances used to transport controlled substances or marijuana and any books,
records, money, or any other assets acquired or used in the sale or purchase of controlled substances or
marijuana. Less frequently, real property such as land or real estate may also be forfeited. To forfeit any of the
aforementioned, law enforcement must first have probable cause that the property in question was directly
related to the illegal activity in order to seize it.
Law enforcement may seize the property but for the state to keep the property it must follow certain procedures
depending on the type of property being forfeited. For property other than vehicles or real property, the attorney
general must file a summons and complaint in circuit court, describe the property, the state of the property's
location, the property's current custodian, the name of each owner if known, the name of each party in interest,
and allege the essential elements of the claimed violation. -
2021-02-14 at 2:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member Doesn't happen.
in south dakota? i wouldn't know, asset seizures over drug possession were a big scandal in tx years back, you can search shroomery if you think it's false. mostly happened to blacks if i recall correctly.
shroomery's news service used to be a gold mine of information on government corruption regarding drug policy -
2021-02-14 at 4:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/Issue%20Memo/124655.pdf
For civil forfeiture, an owner does not need to be charged with a crime to have assets seized. Law enforcement
need only prove they had a reasonable basis for believing a crime was committed. This type of forfeiture is
currently used for drug asset forfeitures. Civil forfeiture laws came to fruition in South Dakota in 1970 with the
creation of civil forfeiture in SDCL 34-20B-70 for drug-related crimes. The original statute went through a variety
of changes in the 1970s and 1980s with the most recent change coming in 2016. Bills attempting to expand the
practice of civil forfeiture to vehicles used in felony-offense DUIs have been proposed several times throughout
the last decade, but failed to become law.
There are many aspects to asset forfeiture in South Dakota. A person may forfeit products, materials, containers,
or equipment used in manufacturing, storing, or distributing controlled substances or marijuana. A person may
also forfeit any vehicles or conveyances used to transport controlled substances or marijuana and any books,
records, money, or any other assets acquired or used in the sale or purchase of controlled substances or
marijuana. Less frequently, real property such as land or real estate may also be forfeited. To forfeit any of the
aforementioned, law enforcement must first have probable cause that the property in question was directly
related to the illegal activity in order to seize it.
Law enforcement may seize the property but for the state to keep the property it must follow certain procedures
depending on the type of property being forfeited. For property other than vehicles or real property, the attorney
general must file a summons and complaint in circuit court, describe the property, the state of the property's
location, the property's current custodian, the name of each owner if known, the name of each party in interest,
and allege the essential elements of the claimed violation.
Yeah... This isn't evidence of what you said ... -
2021-02-14 at 4:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kuntzschutz in south dakota? i wouldn't know, asset seizures over drug possession were a big scandal in tx years back, you can search shroomery if you think it's false. mostly happened to blacks if i recall correctly.
shroomery's news service used to be a gold mine of information on government corruption regarding drug policy
Nope doesn't happen at all. -
2021-02-14 at 5:37 AM UTC
-
2021-02-14 at 5:52 AM UTC
-
2021-02-14 at 5:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member Yeah… This isn't evidence of what you said …
It literally explains the legal basis by which police can steal your car for having a joint in it (by claiming you were storing it in the vehicle, that you were transporting it for sale, etc). It also shows they don't have to actually charge you with "possession with intent" for your vehicle to be stolen under that pretense.
Here, let the funny British man explain it:
-
2021-02-14 at 6:44 AM UTCjohn oliver is soooooo not funny
-
2021-02-14 at 6:55 AM UTC
-
2021-02-14 at 5:59 PM UTCGuys we need to regalate it bigly and the guverment tax the everliving SNOt out uv it
-
2021-02-14 at 6 PM UTC
Originally posted by l a n n y s - m o m m i e - gave me a two hole for one price special nine months before he was born now hes mad that his conception was preceded by the exchange of pocket change. who's your daddy bitch as usual, everything you post is wrong.
there are literally jurisdictions that derive almost the entirety of their income from police 'collecting taxes'
Okay guy who is barren and lies about a lot of stuff to try to sound smart but can be seen-through -
2021-02-14 at 7:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai It literally explains the legal basis by which police can steal your car for having a joint in it (by claiming you were storing it in the vehicle, that you were transporting it for sale, etc). It also shows they don't have to actually charge you with "possession with intent" for your vehicle to be stolen under that pretense.
Here, let the funny British man explain it:
Yeah, but its not like he said. He's pushing a dramatized and untrue version. Cops don't take your car and cash because they found a joint. It has to be suspected of being used for a crime. Like if you're using your car to sell weed. Not just simple possession.
They can take it without a conviction but it doesn't mean they can keep it if you're cleared of charges.
These retards are acting like cops can just steal from you for no reason on a whim or whatever.
