> Which basically seems to mean that (at least in the US) people don't have a
> right against seizure without being (criminally) guilty of any wrongdoing.
>
> Is this correct? Anybody knows how this is handled in other countries? I
> always was under the (obviously innocent) impression that for the
> government (any democratic government) to be able to seize anything from
> me, I have to be guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of /something/.
>
> Gerhard
>   
Gerhard:

There are a host of matters that fall under "civil" law that can result 
in seizure. (I mean civil in the sense of not criminal, in the 
traditional British and American legal systems.)

For example, suppose you build an new room on your house. (This is a 
true story recently covered in the local newspapers) And, suppose you 
submit the plans to the county authorities and receive the proper 
building permits. And, finally, suppose you build the new room in exact 
accordance with the plans you submitted.

Then, after it is built, a neighbor complains to the county that the 
permit should not have been granted because it failed to meet some part 
of the building code, in this case, it is too close to the property 
line, so the problem cannot be fixed by a small change to the new room. 
The county investigates and decides that yes, the building permit should 
have never been granted and orders the home owner to tear down the new 
room at the owner's expense.

This is not a criminal matter, and if the home owner goes to court to  
challenge the tear down order, the county does not have to win "beyond a 
reasonable doubt." Rather, all the county has to show is that it is 50% 
plus a small amount that the county is correct. (Very easy to do, since 
no one seriously disputes the fact that the permit should not have been 
granted.)

If the home owner refuses to tear down the new room, the county could 
ask the judge to assess a civil penalty (monetary fine of, say, $1000 a 
day for every day not in compliance) or to find the home owner in 
contempt of court (if there is a court-issued tear down order), and to 
imprison the home owner until the room is torn down. Since the purpose 
of the imprisonment would be coercive, not for punishment, most of the 
criminal procedural safeguards would not apply. (Usually said that a 
person in jail for civil contempt "has the keys to the jail house in his 
pocket" since all that is required to be released is to agree to follow 
the court's order.

Still, sitting in jail works the same whether you are  there for a 
coercive purpose or a retributive purpose.

And, by the way, in this particular case, the home owner will not be 
able to recover any money from the county for incorrectly issuing the 
building permit.

So, in this  (real) example, the home owner is probably out of pocket 
$150,000 or more and has zero possibility of getting it back from 
anyone. If if he refuses to comply, the county can have him locked up 
until he does comply. (A few years ago, a local golf course owner spent 
about 60 days in jail for refusing to plant trees on his property that  
the county demanded. He was released only after planting the trees. 
Since this was a civil contempt, no "beyond a  reasonable doubt" stuff 
nor a jury trial. Just a judge who sent him to jail, to remain there 
until he decided to plant the trees. [Some cases that say at some point 
a civil contempt jail sentence stops being coercive and becomes punitive 
and crosses into criminal contempt of court and has some additional 
procedural safeguards.])

Jack




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist