Talk:Search and seizure
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Search and seizure article.|
|WikiProject Law Enforcement||(Rated Start-class)|
This is not equivalent to Confiscation
Search and seizure describes a concept relating to US law and is only an instance of Confiscation. Confiscation is a wider concept than Search and seizure. The redirect from Confiscation should be removed and an article created there (the original article restored, if there was one?) or at least a disambiguation page should be created (perhaps also with a link to the Wiktionary entry if that is appropriate). Any resulting Confiscation page can note Search and seizure with a hyperlink. Eilthireach 00:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Smilarly, why does [forfeiture] redirect here? This article doesn't appear to deal with it at all. JonoP 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm changing the redirects for Forfeiture and Civil forfeiture to redirect to Asset forfeiture.Terry Carroll 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This needs a complete rewrite. It looks like somebody started a page on Search and Seizure, which should have discussed the application of the 4th Amendment to criminal investigation, the exclusionary rule, search warrants, etc., and then somebody else went off about forfeiture, which would involve substantive criminal law, due process, public policy, etc. The two topics over lap just a little. In either case, they are taking away your stuff, but the legal concepts, personal rights, and public interests involved are different. "Confiscation" would describe the government's taking of title or ownership to property for punishment or crime abatement, but forfeiture is the term usually used in the U.S. (I have no idea what terms are used in other English-speaking countries.) Search and seizure is the government looking for and taking physical possession evidence of crime. I'm a criminal defense attorney and would love to work on this article if I ever have pause in this relentless stream of searches and seizures. --Mrees1997 00:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am certified to translate into two different languages, and disagree completely. Looting and pillaging have been venerable traditions from time immemorial all over the planet. I also notice in the photo Australian police enforcing prohibitionist practices exported by These American States. Last I looked, Australia was either an independent country or at had at least attained Dominion Status. American exploitation of the League of Nations and later the UN to export the US prohibition and income tax amendments began with Herbert Hoover and Harry Anslinger (this is reported in Hoover's published Presidential Papers in the public domain). The practice was intensified by George Bush the First, demanding the death sentence for victimless crimes on national teevee, and continues today as a means of purchasing the support of armed minions by giving them a share of the loot. In Bush the First's official published papers the practice of looting property on prohibitionist pretexts is referred to as "Sharing" the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture. After the collapse of communism, looter satrapies and People's States began gleefully taking up automatic assault weapons to enforce all manner of policies generated and advocated by the Prohibition Party of America (prohibition with guns) and the various looter parties (income tax as advocated by the Greenback Party, Anti-Monopoly Party, People's Party, Socialist Labor Party, Socialist Party and Communist Party USA). I have spent much of my life outside the USA, and of the 32 parties in Brazil, for instance, there is not a single one that does not advocate American-style armed prohibitionism and "sharing" of assets. Only Uruguay has become a conscientious objector in the U.S. "war" that invades foreign soil with american political enactments. translator (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Having been born in the US more than 45 years ago, my native tongue trumps your certification, and Mrees1997's membership in the bar association eclipses both of us. "Search and Seizure" is a specific legal phrase – this is not simply a couple of random words for you to loosely translate and then start babbling about.
- "Looting"? "Pillaging"? "Phohibitionist"? "Income tax"? Death sentence"? "Civil asset forfeiture"? "Armed minions"? "Communism"? "Prohibition Party of America"? "Political parties of Brazil"? "Asset sharing"? "Uruguay"?
- Please know that not a single one of those are even remotely relevant to the complex and highly-specific legal doctrines surrounding "search and seizure". I ask that you please locate your dictionary and your translator's certificate, and burn them both at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you very much. —grolltech(talk) 04:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Moving of text
- Forfeiture still refers to this page. The redirect at Foreiture needs to point to Asset Forfeiture.
- Civil_forfeiture still refers to this page as well, and should be redirected to Asset Forfeiture as well. Possibly that page should be expanded or renamed as well, as it focuses primarily on crime-related asset forfeiture and there are other, quite different legal proceedings bearing the same name ...
Can someone with the requisite legal knowledge add information regarding what happens to evidence seized without a required warrant in various jurisdictions (US, UK)? Rusco
Totally agreed: search and seizure is one thing, forfeiture is another. This needs to be sorted out. Jorge331 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I got a question... today we had a lockdown in my school and isnt that against the charter? I mean don't you have to have a legit reason to search someone or some people? Or is there just an exeption for high schools because all teenagers and only teenagers do drugs? I mean wtf u can't have steriotypeism as a reason. No I'm serious someone explain to me the difference between frisking some random person on the street and searshing random people/classrooms/lockers in the school. If u have an answer my email is email@example.com
Since you talk about the Charter, I am assuming you are Canadian. You do have some protection from illegal search but not as much as you would in your home for instance because your school locker is not your property but rather the property of the school. The charter only applies to the government and only protects you from having the evidence used in court. So even if the search is unreasonable, the school could use the evidence to suspend you or whatever. Eiad77 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a related article search of persons that is really in a bad way. I propose that it basically be eliminated and redirect to this article. Please comment here. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think the other article ("search of persons") could be improved, and it discusses issues beyond search of property: for example, in the U.S., police frisk citizens for hidden weapons without a warrant, due to a risk of imminent danger; they are not allowed to similarly search a home for hidden weapons, such as land mines inside the front door. Because searching people is an entirely different level of concern, I recommend NOT merging. Simply being a poor-quality article is not a sufficient reason for merging, because very few articles start out as high quality, due to a lack of time/experience of the volunteer writers. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The search of persons article is a stub that should be merged Ms.henrick (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Being a stub is not a valid reason for merge. These are not the same topic. —grolltech(talk) 04:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Evidence of other crimes obtained in a legal search
Could someone please add information on the question whether evidence of crimes other than the one for which the search was conducted may be used in legal proceedings? For example, a house is legally searched for stolen goods, and drugs or illegal firearms are found instead (or in addition). Thanks. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)