Sadly, though Institute for Justice ("IJ") claims victory, the fact is that they won because a prosecutor blew a deadline by failing to file the confiscation lawsuit on time. They didn't mention the fact that only the Slatic family's money ($100k) was returned, not the money ($300k)the government took from Med-West . (This is not to come down too hard on IJ. We should all support IJ because we desperately need them. In this case the link above was intended as a feel-good piece that lets IJ supporters be proud of their support.)
From the above link:"California’s courts are not an easy place to litigate, but we never once thought about giving up. Two judges denied IJ’s three separate motions asking the government to return the money. When the DA missed a February 2017 deadline to file a formal lawsuit to forfeit the money, she still refused to return it and attempted to file a case anyway. The case was assigned to a judge who ruled in March that the DA had missed the mandated deadline. Ultimately, the judge ordered the prompt return of every penny taken from the family, ruling,
[The] money that [the] People are holding does not appear to have any evidentiary value on its own, and it cannot be declared contraband without due process."
These civil forfeiture cases are usually listed as being against the property, not against the rightful owner of the property, e.g. "People vs $9,632.50". So there wasn't going to be what any right-minded person would truly consider due process. Civil forfeiture makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. I wonder whether the legitimate owner of the money (i.e. the one the government took it from) has the proper standing to defend the money, or arrange for its defense, in a court of law. (Apparently somebody does have the right standing though. IJ has used that standing to act as attorney for these civil asset forfeiture cases.)
Here's a link to the complaint from the Slatic family to the California Supreme Court that eventually forced a lower court (San Diego County Superior Court, I think) to force San Diego to return the Slatic family's money.
https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandate.pdf
It is 13 double-spaced pages and it's fairly easy reading. It points out how San Diego's prosecutor tried to bypass the laws and how they tried to ex-post-facto apply laws current to the prosecution of Med-West even though those laws did not exist and therefore could not have been violated at the time of the activity ("using a prohibited chemical extraction process"). The prohibited chemical was not the end-product re some kind of cannabis oil. The prohibited chemical was the use of ethanol alcohol in the process of extraction. Ethanol as in vodka, for instance. The complaint (the Petition for Writ of Mandate is its real name) is searchable so download it and search for ethanol and for extraction.
Here's another quote from the Writ of Mandate:
"Because “extraction” was not a crime at the time of the raid, as a matter of law there can be no probable cause to believe that Med-West violated the prohibition on “extraction” in § 11379.6."
Please please take the time to read this Writ of Mandate to get the full effect of how tyranny is being visited upon the people of Kalifornia -- and the rest of America.
Elimination or amelioration of civil asset forfeiture laws has been one of President Trump's goals. The MSM has tried to make it sound like President Trump supports civil asset forfeiture in the usual way that the MSM lies about anything good that President Trump does. Here's a clear example of the President's support for elimination of these anti-American laws:
https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/trump-signs-collins-irs-civil-asset-forfeiture-bill/
This July 3, 2019 article points out:
"A bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, R-Gainesville, that aims to prevent abuse of civil asset forfeiture policies has been signed by President Donald Trump."
Short article. Worth a quick read.
Institute for Justice is a great organization. They have fought and legitimately won quite a few of these cases. Maybe one day they'll get to the Supreme Court with a civil forfeiture case and the SCOTUS will actually rule civil forfeiture unconstitutional. Wake me up when that happens.
Please consider donating to IJ to support their very important work.
https://ij.org/
.
