Two opinions, one in favor of civil asset forfeiture law reform, the other opposed.
http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-legislator-civil-ass…/…/5443051
http://newsok.com/assistant-da-oklahoma-shouldnt-cripple-this-key-public-safety-tool/article/5443053
Two opinions, one in favor of civil asset forfeiture law reform, the other opposed.
http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-legislator-civil-ass…/…/5443051
http://newsok.com/assistant-da-oklahoma-shouldnt-cripple-this-key-public-safety-tool/article/5443053
I was going to counter each argument ADA Rowland presented in opposition to the proposed law. But, after rereading his words, I realized that there is no way to respond to such an illogical, inane, and specious line of reasoning with any logical comments.
His reasons for keeping the law as it is makes me wonder how any real criminals get prosecuted, much less convicted, in Oklahoma County.
If anyone else takes the time to read this crap, pay attention to his claim that the Oklahoma legal system is absolutely perfect and can do no wrong, unlike the authorities in the rest of the country. In addition, get a good laugh (or cry) when he states that the Constitution allows a person the be assumed guilty without a legal trial of any kind.
And the shallow arguments that any abuse is not that widespread, and that a ‘few’ instances should be ignored, flies in the face of the uproar to the recent issues created by police killing Black men. Although the percentages of occurrences are actually very small and each instance is unique, those actions forced many police departments to make significant valid policy changes.
Good luck with SB 838, Sen. Loveless. It may not be the final answer, but it certainly makes the roaches scramble when the lights are turned on.