Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 322957, member: 5629&quot;]The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for any seizure of property with regards to criminal cases only.&nbsp; Since this is obviously a criminal case, the Fourth Amendment applies.&nbsp; In this case, the officer <b>must</b> obtain a warrant.&nbsp; The warrant may only be issued upon probable cause <b>AND</b> affidavit by the officer (NORFED is the most recent example of this <b>requirement</b> under law).</p><p><br /></p><p>Case law has upheld this requirement.&nbsp; There is judicial oversight with regards to seizure for a reason.&nbsp; it not only protects the actor of the State under local indemnification laws, but also the current holder of the questionable property and the &quot;legal&#039; owner (if different).&nbsp; Warrants are quite a trivial matter, especially since a magistrate of local jurisdiction has the authority to issue such a writ.&nbsp; The writ of warrant also &quot;insures&quot; that the actual item in question only is seized as well as safeguards against items being unlawfully seized.</p><p><br /></p><p>The items would normally only be seized <b>AS EVIDENCE</b> in a criminal case.&nbsp; If the item is automatically returned to the self claimed &quot;legal&quot; owner without due process of law, then someone in the process has done something quite illegal.&nbsp; our country&#039;s governmental systems are set up with a set due process of law and checks and balances for a reason.</p><p><br /></p><p>As American patriots, we must demand at all times that these processes and our rights are upheld to the fullest, or chance losing them.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in