
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The Institute for Justice is once again taking a close look at civil forfeiture. One of IJ’s leaders in our civil forfeiture work, Dan Alban, joins us to outline our new report Policing for Profit 4. Some listeners may be familiar with previous editions but, as Dan explains, in this one there’s a lot of new information and analysis, especially how civil forfeiture works procedurally and how those procedures fail the Supreme Court’s mandate that they be “timely.” Dan also discusses a recent Sixth Circuit case involving Bitcoin and civil forfeiture and how innocent owners of crypto are sometimes caught up in the forfeiture process. Then Marie Miller of IJ discusses a recent Seventh Circuit case about another government abuse near and dear to our hearts: qualified immunity. Some officers raided a rural Wisconsin property where they tackled a suspect and then “accidentally” (that’s disputed) hit him in the head with the butt of an M16. The court says with the facts being in dispute to a jury the case should go.
Policing for Profit 4
U.S. v. 0.40401694 Bitcoin
Steinhoff v. Malovrh
Culley v. Marshall
Indiana parcel forfeiture case
BBO episode Pierson to Pearson
By Institute for Justice4.7
172172 ratings
The Institute for Justice is once again taking a close look at civil forfeiture. One of IJ’s leaders in our civil forfeiture work, Dan Alban, joins us to outline our new report Policing for Profit 4. Some listeners may be familiar with previous editions but, as Dan explains, in this one there’s a lot of new information and analysis, especially how civil forfeiture works procedurally and how those procedures fail the Supreme Court’s mandate that they be “timely.” Dan also discusses a recent Sixth Circuit case involving Bitcoin and civil forfeiture and how innocent owners of crypto are sometimes caught up in the forfeiture process. Then Marie Miller of IJ discusses a recent Seventh Circuit case about another government abuse near and dear to our hearts: qualified immunity. Some officers raided a rural Wisconsin property where they tackled a suspect and then “accidentally” (that’s disputed) hit him in the head with the butt of an M16. The court says with the facts being in dispute to a jury the case should go.
Policing for Profit 4
U.S. v. 0.40401694 Bitcoin
Steinhoff v. Malovrh
Culley v. Marshall
Indiana parcel forfeiture case
BBO episode Pierson to Pearson

969 Listeners

376 Listeners

704 Listeners

1,104 Listeners

1,509 Listeners

983 Listeners

6,611 Listeners

308 Listeners

40 Listeners

740 Listeners

3,948 Listeners

3,355 Listeners

393 Listeners

749 Listeners

0 Listeners